HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ecg@po.CWRU.Edu (Edward C. Goodwin)
Subject: Re: Thermodynamics FAQ
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 92 15:32:00 GMT


	Reality check time:  Why are we arguing over definitions that
"both" sides agree are essentially correct (when viewed from within
a particular discipline)?  If "closed system" means that no mass
transfer occurs and "isolated system" means no nothing transfer occurs
then the only issue is HOW those definitions are used to support
an argument, and whethor the arguments are sound.  As anyone who has
been exposed to any thermodynamics course should know, the entropy
of an "isolated system" cannot decrease while the entropy of a
"closed system" (as defined by Henley) may increase or decrease depending
on outside influences. (Pardon me for repeating what others have said; I
just don't understand the grounds for contention.)
	There is a serious problem with the creationist's use of the second
law that I haven't seen mentioned in T.O.  If evolution violates the second
law because "life" makes order from disorder then HOW can we be alive right
now?  Is God constantly violating entropy on our behalf to keep our cellular
processes going?
	Please consider the following thought experiment:  Take some dirt, 
your favorite house plant and water and seal it inside some large glass
tank to make a terrarium.  Next, sit it in the sunlight and check back
on it in a few months to see what has happened.  The plant has GROWN.
It has encorporated highly disorganized carbon dioxide into a highly
organized structure (likely cellulose) and while in a "closed system".
A miracle?  A violation of the second law?  Hardly.  The sunlight
provides the energy necessary to drive photosynthesis which ultimately
results in the "fixation" of carbon dioxide into organic carbon; an
event which forms the basis for the vast majority of modern life (the
hydrogen sulfide bacteria being an exception).  The plant in a box
meets all the criteria for a "closed system" and yet results in a
decrease in entropy (within the box!).
	It seems reasonable that once "life" occurs, and we know it does,
evolution does not result in any additional pseudo-violation of the second
law.
-- 
Ed Goodwin
ecg@po.cwru.edu           "Facts do not cease to exist because they
ecg@po.cwru.edu@cunynm     are ignored"          Aldus Huxley
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: young@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (young.u.huh)
Subject: Try the Bible (Re: Calling Young-earth Creationists)
Organization: AT&T
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 21:59:32 GMT

From article <1992Jul23.115606.202088@uctvax.uct.ac.za>, by fllant01@uctvax.uct.ac.za:
> As a born-again Christian, I subscribe to the theory of a young earth
>  (6000 to 10000 years old).
> 
> Does anyone have scientific evidence to support this?
> (Stuff on dating methods, dynamic vs. atomic time, etc.)
> Please e-mail or post.
> 
> Thanks in advance,
> Anthony Faull.

Try the Bible, starting from Genesis 1:1.  There are, apparently,
many people who believe that the Bible contains the ultimate truth
that transcend human knowledge, reasoning, or scientific evidence.  
Since so many people from all over the world are turning to the 
Bible to seek the truth, the book has been published in hundreds
of translations.  Some people say that a mathematical computation
of numbers from the Bible indicates that the earth was created 
6000 years ago or so.  Since this time frame just happens to 
coincide with the above mentioned theory, the Bible would be the 
right place to look for supporting arguments.  If you have any 
questions, keep reading the Bible, or else, re-examine how firmly
you believe in the Bible.

Young Huh
yhuh@ihlpe.att.com
From: ds0007@buhao (Dale Skiba)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: The Woman Deceived (was ? for SW)
Date: 23 Jul 92 12:59:45 GMT
Organization: Medtronic, Inc.
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

maier@romulus (Chuck Maier) writes:
: In <1992Jul20.104506.18345@hemlock.cray.com> robd@cray.com (Robert Derrick) writes:
: 
: many deletions...
: 
: >Under no interpretation that calls itself literal can this be
: >shown to mean that under some circumstances should women teach.
: >It clearly and unequivocally says No!
: 
: Again, I refer you to Titus for a broader pastoral perspective
: on women/teaching/authority.

Wait a minute.  This is not good enough.  Find one verse in Titus
that says it is good for women to teach or speak in church.
I Corinthians and I Timothy clearly say that women should not teach
or speak in church.  I do not think that Titus refers to women in
those regards.  If he does, wouldn't this be a contradiction between
Titus and the other two books?  Is there anyplace in the Bible that
states sexual equality?  Or do you really believe that sexism is good?

: Literal means to read it all and read it as literature to derive 
: the full meaning.  It is not letterism.  Letterism would have us
: believe God is a bird because some Psalm says "He covers us with
: His wings."  It also does not mean mixing natural philosophy
: with the straightforward interpretation of morality and historical
: events.

The full meaning of the verses in I Corinthians and I Timothy
is very straightforward to me.  Your "full meaning" just ignores
these verses.  Aren't you mixing the "natural Philosophy" of our
20th century (sexism is wrong) with your derivation of meaning
from scripture.  Scripture says that men should treat women well,
but that they are clearly beneath men in power/authority.  In the
20th century most of the western world believes that women are equal
to men in power/authority.

Aren't you being a "Letterist" in regard to Genesis?  Is your
interpretation of Genesis at all straightforward?  I think not.

--
Dale Skiba
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: the problems with Brinkman's gunman interpretation
Date: 21 Jul 92 12:09:21 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T

In article <91434@bu.edu> colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby) writes:
> In article <1992Jul15.114058.1@si151a.llnl.gov> brinkman@si151a.llnl.gov writes:
> 
> >   You stand outside a door, and hear Bill and Mary Smith arguing.  You hear
> >Bill say, "I am going to shoot you now," and a gun goes off.  You walk in the
> >room and you see Mary on the floor dead from a gunshot wound and Bob standing
> >over her with a smoking gun saying, "I shouldn't have shot her."  It is not a
> >fact that Bill shot Mary though, because you didn't directly observe it.
> 
> 	Yeah, but what about the two neighbors who saw smoke coming from
> the grassy knoll across the street! Why did Mary's family have the
> carpet steam cleaned the very next day!! What about the direction
> of the splattered blood -- if Bob fired the gun the bullet would have
> had to turn 90 degrees in mid-flight!!! I, for one, certainly think the
> Brinkman commission's report needs to be examined more closely 8-)

Ah, but more significantly, my dear Captain Colby, is the matter
of the cigarette ash.  Observe that two cigarette butts were
found, but no ash.  When we have solved the mystery of the
missing cigarette ash, then we will have our murderer.

Dean Kaflowitz
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: henley@eng.auburn.edu (James Paul Henley)
Subject: Re: blah, blah, blah (was: Re: Blah Blah)
Organization: Auburn University Engineering
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 17:39:35 GMT

In article <1992Jul31.143657.15570@cbnewsm.cb.att.com> mls@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (mike.siemon) writes:
>
>Like a number of others reading your articles, I get an uneasy feeling
>that you think you can hand-wave about "macroscopic" issues to forclose
>on evolution.  You will have to be explicitly rigorous (i.e., present a
>verifiable mathematical argument) if you hope to urge any such conclusion.

I have no such delusions of grandeur, believe me.  I am trying to understand
the mechanisms of evolution from the laws of science that I use the most
- the laws of thermodynamics.  I will grant that some processes may involve
extremely complex calculations to do a rigorous mathematical analysis, and
I don't expect Biologists to have to do those.  In thermo, however, it
is often very useful to make simplifying assumptions, see what is predicted,
and then evaluate whether the assumptions are born out by the facts.  That
is basically what I am trying to do.  I can't very well do it when nobody
understands the basis for my assumptions.  I first need to TRY to get a
few biologists to understand the importance of the laws.

>
>I will also add one more caveat.  Like Paul Schindler, I am willing to
>take as a first apporoximation that the Earth is a closed system in your

Like I said, any simplifying assumptions must be tested for validity.  A
number of Physicists and Biologists are helping me to do just that - 
telling whether the assumptions are valid.  This is all part of any
thermodynamic analysis

>sense.  But I must remind you, and others, that strictly speaking this
>is quite false.  We may neglect this for first-order calculation, but

In the original FAQ, I said that strictly speaking, the Earth was an
open system because air molecules leave, meterorites shower down, 
space missions leave, etc.  Again, its just a simplifying assumption.
What is important is the order of magnitude of the terms in the energy
balance.

1.23475 + 0.000000034 = ?

Some terms drop out.

>the Earth actually sweeps in a fair amount of debris from the dustbin
>that is the solar system -- and presumably did so more significantly
>a few billion years ago when there was more debris around.  Any serious

I would presume that it could have happened numerous times in the last
few billion years.

>argument over abiogenesis or the initial stages of biological evolution
>cannot afford to ignore this (even if one dismisses Hoyle&Wickramsinghe).
>-- 
>Michael L. Siemon		The Son of Man has come eating and drinking;
>				and you say "Behold, a glutton and a drunkard,
>mls@usl.com			a friend of tax collectors and sinners."  And
>standard disclaimer		yet, Wisdom is justified by all her children.


James P. Henley Jr.
Chemical Engineering Dept
Auburn University
From: swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: just what is the Holden Felt Effect of Gravity?
Date: 21 Jul 92 03:48:39 GMT
Reply-To: swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <711611621@sheol.UUCP> throopw@sheol.UUCP (Wayne Throop) writes:
|> Ted says:
|> An atenuated perception (felt efect) of gravity on earth could arise
|> in one way:  earth orbiting a small electro-magnetic star or binary
|> system, with the North pole of Earth pointed forever straight at the
|> small star, the entire system held together by electromagnetic force. ...
|
|But the above makes it clear, I think.  We are NOT talking about tides,
|but about gravitation from a body that the earth is NOT in traditional
|orbit around.  Earth is suspended away from any traditional orbit by
|"electromagnetic forces". 

Jehosephat!  An *entire* *planet* suspended by a giagantic *magnet*!

Anybody care to guess at the magnetic flux necessary to achieve this
incredible feat!  I think little more really needs to be said.
-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: mrjg8679@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Michael R James)
Subject: Re: Thermodynamics FAQ
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 21:34:07 GMT

henley@eng.auburn.edu (James Paul Henley) writes:

[reasonable textbook def'n of thermo deleted]

>This definition does not include energy that exists apart from matter.  For
>example, radiation in space.  Pure energy, apart from matter, is not

Whoah! Hold it right there.
What is "pure energy" and what kind of energy would be "impure"
I, conveniently enough, have the exact textbook [1] you are using
and if we turn to p. 59 we find the following:
     "Thus we can define *energy* as a system quantity that describes
      the thermodynamic state of the system and is changed by transfers
      to and from the system"   [** italicised in original]

You cannot suddenly remove energy from matter after you have
crafted a series of rules that explicitly tie energy to the state
of matter.

[more deletions]

>Take the earth - we know that gas molecules can occasionally escape into space,
>meteors occasionally shower down into the atmosphere, and space missions leave
>the earth.  So in the strictest sense, the earth is an open system.  But if
>we study the rate of overall energy transfer, and compare that with the rate
>of transfer due to matter entering and leaving, then for all practical
>purposes the earth is currently a closed system, because the effect on the

Yes, you can say this.  But here on t.o. the convention has
been to refer to thermodynamically isolated systems as "closed
systems".  This only changes the terminology  and not the 
essential facts.

>[1] _Fundamentals_of_Engineering_Thermodynamics_, Howell and Buckius,
>McGraw-Hill, 1987

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

--
 Michael James       mrjg8679@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu 

      "Ludwig Boltzmann, who spent much of his life studying statistical
       mechanics, died in 1906, by his own hand.  Paul Ehrenfest, carrying
       on the work, died similarly in 1933. Now it is our turn to study
       statistical mechanics."  
                                  -David L. Goodman "States of Matter"
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Baby elephants can't gallop either...
From: sbishop@desire.wright.edu
Date: 30 Jul 92 17:12:21 EST
Organization: Wright State University 



Since Ted only seems to understand if we spell things out completely:

Baby elephants are more than small enough to gallop if it were possible
for them to do so.  They cannot gallop because of the way their legs have
evolved, they have four knees rather than knees in front and hocks in back
like horses, giraffes, deer, rhinoes and many other four legged animals.  

Rhinos which are large heavy animals, as large as many smaller elephants,
CAN gallop, I have personally seen them do so on many occasions.  

Ted, please note this.  Since you claim that elephants can't gallop because
they are too heavy, then why can't baby elephants?  And why CAN rhinos?

Sue

Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject:  oh rah...
Organization: Mitre Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 15:50:10 GMT

In article <2840@fedfil.UUCP> news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
}If you return this image to
}me email, as an attempt at getting my sysadm pissed off, I will email you
}a copy of the entire King James bible, all 4.7 MB worth.  We'll see whose
}sysadm gets pissed off first.

Oh rah.  Didn't take Ted long to get around to the threats.

Tell you what.  I'll see your KJV, and raise you a ASCII Koran, Book of
Mormon, Pearls of Great Price, and Doctrine & Covenants.  And throw in the
talk.origins FAQ, evaluations of McDowell's joke, and a few k of the
contradictions of the KJV, places where Yahweh directs or implements killing,
and a few other things.

Isn't it about time for your homophobic physical threats?  Is McLean
easier for you to find?
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Beating a dead horse
From: sbishop@desire.wright.edu
Date: 28 Jul 92 06:18:39 EST
Organization: Wright State University 

In article <n05f8t@ofa123.fidonet.org>, David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org writes:
> Tag: Jim Meritt (jmeritt@retina.mitre.org (Jim Meritt))
>  
> JM> "Has anyone seen a change in the positions in the postings
> JM> of either Bob Bales or Ted Holden over the years, regardless
> JM> of the number of times that they have been demonstrated wrong?
> JM> If yes, what and when? If no, why expect it now i.e. why argue
> JM> with a rock?"
>  
> Talking to Ted Holden is like beating a dead horse's ass.

	Ted Holden *IS* a horse's ass.


Sue
From: David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: The Holden Phenomena
X-Sender: newtout 0.01 Jul 13 1992
Date: 27 Jul 92  18:28:32

Tag: Ted Holden (news@fedfil.UUCP (news))
 
TH> "If you should ever be standing around a time machine,
TH> and have some moron ask you your preference between
TH> bringing back the 44' trex or one of the 6' carnosaurs,
TH> go for the 44-footer. You'd be in no danger that way;
TH> he'd collapse in a heap under our gravity. The 6'
TH> carnosaur would probably kill you."
 
Oh, Ted, Ted, Ted, Ted. . . . You remind me of the person
who sleeps on the beach down the street, on Laguna Beach,
who spends his time sitting in the dirt and telling people
who walk by that he is Jesus Christ. This old fellow saying
he is the Son of God (or whatever Christians think It is)
no more makes it so than your saying gravity we less in
the past makes it so. Just as this would-be Jesus is looked
upon with compassion, sympathy, and some ammusment, so
too your bizzare ASSERTIONS.
 
Mr. Holden, how about presenting THE FACTS as you see them,
instead of making bold, dataless ASSERTIONS? Surely if the
data supports your thesis, you need not fear to share with
us this data.
 
I've read your, er, ah, "interesting" claims for over a
year here, and I've yet to see you support your claims. I
have seen several million bytes dedicated to showing to
you in mathematical terms why your "Holden Number" is not
valid; that your scaling technique is not valid; that your
claims of planetary motion is not only invalid, but
IMPOSSIBLE. I myself have posted to you the orbital
elements and perturbation for placing the planets where
you assert they were, and demonstrated your claims
impossible.
 
Also, I have personally corrected some of your errors in
regards to mythology (particularly Greek and a Egyptian),
and yet you still make claims of mythology that is counter
to what most, if not all, other mythologists have leared
about ancient mythology.
 
Ted, if you need the pretense of respectibility in your
delusional assertions (that have steped well beyong the
bounds of quaint ecentricism and into raving lunatic),
post some REAL data that supports your claims, instead
of only making bold assertions.
 
As for choosing between a Carnosaur or Tyran Rex to take
home on my time-trip vacation, I'll take the Carnosaur;
I only have a small backyard.
From: lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Is creationism science?
Date: 27 Jul 92 22:08:00 GMT
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Jul27.200554.20293@dscomsf.desy.de>, hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes...
>But that dosen't stop `Creation Science' being as much garbage as Astrology. 
> 
>The point is that there can be no way that any procedure which rejects
>evidence purely because it disagrees with a theory can be science. It is
>arguable that a theory that can have no predicitve power can be science,
>however anyone claiming that to replace a theory in accord with the
>facts and with predicitve power with one that disagrees and has no
>predicitive power is fooling themselves if they try to pass it off as
>science.

"Scientific" can apply to different things:  methods by which conclusions
are arrived at, substantive theories, and people, for three examples.
Which of these things (or is it something else?) being scientific
determines whether or not something is science?
   Surely the mere fact that creationists ignore things that conflict
with their "theories" (most of which are not scientific) is not sufficient
to make *creationism* scientific; not anymore than the existence of
fraudulent scientists makes theories in mainstream science into
pseudoscience.  Isn't it possible for an unscientific person to (perhaps
by chance) come up with a scientific theory?

Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
From: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: animals predated plants, James
Date: 30 Jul 92 21:30:37 GMT
Organization: animal -- coelomate -- deuterostome

In article <henley.920730104146@wilbur.eng.auburn.edu> henley@eng.auburn.edu (James Paul Henley) writes:

>I would guess that the oil reserves are the result of liquification by
>heat and pressure of a long term buildup of vegetation.  I would guess
>that before significant animal life was around,

	Animals predated plants, Mr. Henley. All (and perhaps more) of
the animal phyla we see today evolved in around the Cambrian -- 500
million years ago. Chordata (our phylum) was the last animal phylum 
to evolve. The first plants did not appear until about 430 million
years ago and they did not move onto land until about 410 million
years ago. For many millions of years, ferns were the dominant
plant form (ferns are seedless and vascular). About 275 million
years ago, gymnosperms arose (these are seeded and vascular, conifers
are an example.) A mere 130 million years ago, the final phylum of
plants evolved -- the angiosperms (these are seeded, vascular and
are flowering). This is during the beginning of the end of the 
dinosaurs, by the time the dino's went extinct, angiosperms
were the dominant plant type worldwide.

>James P. Henley Jr.

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: czl30@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Chris Lee)
Newsgroups: talk.origins,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Shroud exposed at early date (Tim O'Neill)
Date: 31 Jul 92 19:04:06 GMT
Reply-To: czl30@DUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Chris Lee)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <1992Jul31.153905.3736@m.cs.uiuc.edu> mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu writes:
>In article <92Jul30.392@infon.jhuedu>, croberts@infon.jhu.edu (Chris Roberts) writes:
>|> RE the local bishop turning up the culprit: any references on that?
>|> I was under the impression that the shroud was always suspect, but
>|> not aware that it was definitely known.  Sheesh.  I wish the facts
>|> would stay put so I could catch up once in a while...
>Check out the book by Joe Nickel (sp?), titled something like
>"Inquest on the Shroud", from Prometheus Books (naturally).
>
>The bishop of where-ever it was in France did indeed determine that
>it was a forgery, and there is a record that "the artist has confessed".
>The shroud was and is awfully profitable for some secular interests,
>however, and has easily survived the trivial objections of skeptics,
>devout and otherwise.
>
>There is plenty of other evidence that the shroud now in Turin was
>created in France about 1350.  See Nickel for a clear account.  The
>story is actually pretty interesting.

Trouble is, it keeps cropping up as "evidence" from some fundamentalist.
No matter how often it gets debunked, somebody (last one I remember was
Mark Barry) brings it up as evidence for the crucifiction.

>
>-- 
>  Robert E. McGrath
>  Urbana Illinois
>  mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu

Chris Lee

PS. Is this really a talk.origins topic?
Newsgroups: talk.origins