HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: davidli@simvax.labmed.umn.edu
Subject: Re: Seismo/ultrasaur weights, was Holden and the galloping elephant
Reply-To: davidli@simvax.labmed.umn.edu
Organization: Health Computer Sciences, U of MN, Mpls
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 16:01:28 GMT

In article <2856@fedfil.UUCP> news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
>|Bullshit.  Again, I would read McGowen's book.

Just out of interest, Ted, to which book by McGowen are you referring?  A
quick scan of the literature by authors named 'McGowen' through the electronic
card catalog at the University of Minnesota produced the following results:

       MCGOWEN AL
    1   EXTRACTION OF FREE GOLD <1973>  (UL)
       MCGOWEN CAROLYN SMITH 1954
    2   REMEDIAL READING FOR ELEMENTARY SCHOOL STUDE <1991> microfiche  (UL)
       MCGOWEN DARRELL 1932
    3   CRIMINAL AND CIVIL TAX FRAUD LAW PRACTICE PR <1986>  (LL)
       MCGOWEN F K
    4   NEW INSIGHTS FROM THEORY AND EXPERIMENT INTO <1990>  (ZE)
       MCGOWEN J H
    5   DEPOSITIONAL AND GROUND WATER FLOW SYSTEMS I <1979>  (UL)
    6   ENVIRONMENTAL GEOLOGIC ATLAS OF THE TEXAS CO <1976>  (UL)
    7   ENVIRONMENTAL GEOLOGIC ATLAS OF THE TEXAS CO <1976>  (UL)
    8   MODERN DEPOSITIONAL ENVIRONMENTS OF THE TEXA <1980>  (UL)
       MCGOWEN JAMES
    9   GOVERNMENT CREDIT SUBSIDIES FOR ENERGY DEVEL <1977>  (UL)
       MCGOWEN JOHN MALCOLM 1906
   10   EFFECT OF TOLUYLENEDIAMINE ON THE EXCRETION <1936>  (UL)
       MCGOWEN MARY K
   11   MIOCENE AND OLIGOCENE PETROLEUM RESERVOIRS O <1990>  (UL)
       MCGOWEN NORRIS COCHRAN
   12   NATURAL GAS THE GULF SOUTHS SYMBOL OF PROGRE <1951>  (UL)
       MCGOWEN TOM
   13   ALBUM OF PREHISTORIC MAN <1975>  (UL)

Of course, if the author's name ISN'T 'McGowen', well, that would be different.

Hoping to hear something positive from Ted for a change (like, 'Well, I got
the name mispelled, sorry about that.') ....

-- David Paschall-Zimbel   
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: robd@cherry09 (Robert Derrick)
Subject: Re: JW discourage education (was Re: dawkins/_the selfish gene_)
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Date: 21 Aug 92 10:31:43 CDT

Corey Carroll (corey@sdf.lonestar.org) wrote:
: 
: I give these qualifiers because my parents let me go to a community
: college to take classes in electronics.  However, the minute my
: teacher started talking about evolution, and I told my father,
: he freaked out, mad that they were teaching evolution in an 
: electronics class, etc, etc, etc.  He even went so far as to
: call that teacher "the Devil".

I'd like to comment, as a person who thinks that the teaching of
evolution is just fine, and who believes that teaching the concepts
of critical thinking is appropriate in just about any educational
venue, that the talking about evolution, because it could not have
been teaching, in an electronics class sounds like it might
have been just over the edge.  How does one talk about evolution
in an electronics class and make it apply.  The theory of Evolution
applies to living things, and in general, these are not a part of
an electronics curriculum (except maybe a brief discussion of
electric eels and galvanic responses).

Anyway, I say this because I had a similar experience.  I chose
to minor in electronics.  In the first class session, the
instructor argued with a student about the existence of God --
he for, the student against -- for about 15 minutes of the class.
This sort of thing continued throughout the semester.  Every
time he would introduce certain concepts, he would ask the
rhetorical question, "And why is it this way?", and by the end
of the semester, even some of the students were echoing with
him, "Because that's the way God made it."  All scientific
inquiry was belittled and critical thinking was squashed.
'Why ask why' was the message of the day.

I changed minors the next semester.

I guess that talking about a valid field of inquiry is more
appropriate than wasting time, I wonder that if it was not
pertinent to the subject at hand, was it also not a
prosletising by the electronics instructor to spend time
speaking of it.

rob derrick
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben)
Subject: Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!
Organization: CenterLine Software, Inc.
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 15:23:43 GMT

I've seen a number of responses to this, and they all seem to miss the
obvious.

In article <1992Aug17.162241.26511@city.cs> lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun) writes:
>Suppose you had a garden. One day you look out of the window and see
>a tree in the middle of if where previously there had been none. Now
>a friend comes to visit you for the first time and looks at the tree.
>He counts the rings and says its been there for 100 years. You say 
>its been there for 1 day. Which of you is correct?
>
>Hint: It depends on your assumptions.
>Advice: Don't make too many assumptions about the origin of the
>        universe and of species.

Essentially, Lionel is saying here that no evidence of the senses can be
trusted: it may be deceptive.  That's plain and simple paranoia.

His [unstated here] solution is simply special pleading: trust the bible.

This is basically anti-scientific: science assumes the ability to infer
from observations.

Mike Huben

"... -- it is all over with priests and gods when man becomes scientific.
Moral: science is the forbidden as such -- it alone is forbidden.  Science is
the first sin, seed of all sin, the original sin.  This alone is morality.
'Thou shalt not know' -- the rest follows."  Nietzsche in "Antichrist".
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben)
Subject: Re: Christian message (in defense of Jim Loucks)
Organization: CenterLine Software, Inc.
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 01:36:37 GMT

In article <639l03ot62RF00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> jloucks@uts.amdahl.com (Jim Loucks) writes:
> My "inability" to produce a theory for special creation was due to
> the fact of the enormous amount of time and energy it would take
> starting from scratch, as I was doing. 

Isn't it funny, Jim, that you can find the theory of evolution explicitly
described in hundreds of biology textbooks, but that you haven't been able
to find a theory of special creation anywhere?

Why is it that we don't have to start from scratch to describe evolution,
but you have to start from scratch to describe special creation beyond the
folk tale in the bible?

Mike Huben

Strephon: "Have you the heart to apply the prosaic rules of evidence to a
	   case brimming with such poetical emotion?"
Chancellor: "Distinctly."
       From "Iolanthe", by Gilbert and Sullivan.
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: ds0007@buhao (Dale Skiba)
Subject: Re: Challenge to harmonize two creation accounts in Genesis.
Organization: Medtronic, Inc.
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 12:45:31 GMT

kai@kai.nada.kth.se (Kai-Mikael J-Aro) writes:
: In article <1992Aug9.043917.2243@sdf.lonestar.org> corey@sdf.lonestar.org (Corey Carroll) writes:
: 
:    Also, the second creation account shows God forming all of the
:    separate "kinds" of land animals and birds during Adam's existence.
:    Why would this be?  Because Adam had to name all of those "kinds".
:    He couldn't have named any animals when he was dead.  (Indeed, I
:    wonder how long it took Adam to name all of the animals.  Did God
:    show him every single created species?  Or just representatives
:    from each family, for instance?  How long would this take?!?)
: 
: I seem to remember that just the insects number in the tens of
: millions of species.  With an ordinary 40-hour week, one name a
: minute, Adam could have spent a century just looking at beetles...
: 
: What a way to start your life!
: 

Well, according to the story; There was no work to (he was in paradise).
There were no women to impress (Eve wasn't created yet).  And he had plenty
of time to waste (He was imortal -- he hadn't sinned yet.  What else was
there to do?  :-)

--
Dale Skiba
Newsgroups: talk.origins,soc.culture.african.american,alt.rap
From: huston@access.digex.com (Herb Huston)
Subject: Re: White skin-how did it develope?
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 10:13:37 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.223509.7577@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> talk.origins,soc.culture.african.american,alt.rap writes:
>
>     I have thought over the evolution of skin color, and have run into the
>following questions:
>
>1) Following that the darker colors for humans are generally dominant vis-a-vis
>the lighter colors
>2) That the darker the skin color, the better the protection from UV radiation
>
>    Then what would be the evolutionary mechanism that would select for lighter
>skin towards the northern climates?  There's little I can see that would
>actively select against the darker skins/for the lighter skins, and I do not
>believe that a lack of evolutionary pressure is evolutionary pressure in, by,
>and of itself.

The evolutionary mechanisms are sexual selection and founders effect.  For a
discussion see pages 116-20 of _The Third Chimpanzee_ by Jared Diamond.

By "northern climates" you really mean "less equatorial climates," right?
You don't want to forget the aboriginal people of Tasmania who had been
living at the climatic latitude of Chicago for about 10,000 years.  Their
skin was quite dark.

>    talk.origins would seem to be the place where the knowledge is

Thanks.

-- Herb Huston
From: alanf@tekig6.PEN.TEK.COM (Alan M Feuerbacher)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Some help finding Evolution evidence.
Keywords: FAQ
Date: 19 Aug 92 03:15:34 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <1992Aug19.015811.6402@bwdls61.bnr.ca> kramer@bcarh12f.bnr.ca (Guenther Kramer) writes:
> [deleted]
>He also talks about some archaeological find where human footprints and 
>dinosaurs have been discovered in the exact same strata.  This is supposed
>to be evidence that man and dinosaurs co-existed.
>
>Is there a 'talk.origins' FAQ or some references I can look up to check 
>out these two issues.  I doubt very much that he will accept the evidence,
>but I promised him the references.
>

Try _Science and Earth History - The Evolution/Creation Controversy_, by
Arthur N. Strahler, Prometheus Books, 1987, pp. 462-70, for an extensive
discussion.

See _Abusing Science - The Case Against Creationism_, by Philip Kitcher,
The MIT Press, 1982, 1990, pp. 121-3, for some choice comments.

See _The New Age - Notes of a Fringe Watcher_, by Martin Gardner, Prometheus
Books, 1988, p. 97-8, with photo of a dinosaur track.

The gist is that many heavy duty creationists have given up on the Paluxy River
"man tracks".  I seem to recall that some of these tracks apparently were
carved in the 1930s by some locals wanting to have fun with tourists,
although most of them are just dinosaur tracks, but don't take my word for it.

Alan Feuerbacher
Tektronix, Inc.
From: news@fedfil.UUCP (news)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: White skin-how did it develope?
Date: 23 Aug 92 14:32:36 GMT
Followup-To: talk.origins
Organization: HTE

> In article <1992Aug20.223509.7577@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> talk.origins,soc.culture.african.american,alt.rap writes:

>>   Then what would be the evolutionary mechanism that would select for lighter
>>skin towards the northern climates?  

You've got the cart in front of the horse here.  You're assuming the cold
climate and then asking what would then cause white skin to develope.

It doesn't work that way.  Somewhere in the world, due to large scale mutation
most likely involving natural/cosmic catastrophe and large volumes of energy
being released upon the world, a group of people with white skin developes.

Then, people being mobile as they are, some of these new honkies migrate north,
some south, some east, some west...

The ones who headed in certain directions made it, i.e. just by dumb luck they
ended up in places in which the white skin and lack of jumping ability turned
out to be favorable adaptations.  

Presumably, the ones who set out for the Congo didn't make it and, their numbers
having been small at the time and there being many disruptions in between, we
find no trace of them.





-- 
Ted Holden
HTE

Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Subject: Jim takes his bat and ball and goes home.
Reply-To: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 19:52:31 GMT

Well, we can hope...

In article <67XJ035262c600@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com>, jloucks@uts.amdahl.com (Jim
Loucks) writes:
> Dan, there is pride, and then there is pride. Since this is a rather 
> difficult subject to effectively communicate in this forum, it is
> best we drop it here and now. But I will repeat the following:
> 
>    I know that you believe you understand what you think I said, but ...
>    I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.

   Jim, you made a stupid statement the logical consequence of which is

                  "God is a liar"

and you've just spent umpteen lines while trying to avoid retraction or
even admission of your error with smoke and mirrors about pride, the 
inscrutibility of God, and "I didn't say"s.  The above is more smoke and
mirrors.

   My repeated attempts to get you to own up to this little piece of 
stupidity have led to your deciding you can't talk aboput the topic any 
more.  Fine, I can descend to your level.

           Nyahh, nyahh, I win.  I'm right and your wrong.

See how frustrating it is when the other guy just declares the truth?

> Once again you have misunderstood me and I'm beginning to think it's
> intentional as has been suggested by some.

   HA!  I understand what you're saying better than you do.  You see, I've
argued with your ilk before and have a much better understanding of the flaws in
your reasoning than you do.  For that matter I can reason more effectively than
you.  Niv=ce to know a mathematical education is of some use.

   There is a difference between misunderstanding someone and pointing out that
what he says implies the impossible and hence is garbage.  If I was
misunderstanding you then ten other people wouldn't be independently coming
up with the same objections.

> If you desire to take up
> this conversation in email then great. Otherwise, I won't be responding
> to further posts on this subject, so please don't take it personally
> when I ignore future postings on this subject.

   I you can't defend (hell, explain) your views in public then I refuse to
talk
to you.  I'm just going to keep pointing out when you make really big goobers. 
Feel free to "kill file" me or whatever.  You are NOT the target audience and I
still get to read what you write and I get to attribute your flights of fancy
to a real live breathing creationist.  You realize I save your good stuff
for later use?  Some day in a debate or talk to high school students I'm gonna
haul out something you said in talk.origins as an example?

   As Ron Zuber pointed out, nothing indicts creationism like it's proponents.

> Jim Loucks           jloucks@uts.amdahl.com 

Dan
Danwell@IASTATE.EDU
From: news@fedfil.UUCP (news)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Inability to read to the next line
Date: 12 Aug 92 21:56:23 GMT
Organization: HTE

In article <1992Aug11.062716.3357@desire.wright.edu>, sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
 
> > Galloping is clearly out for anything that size, regardless of conformation.
 
 
> Then how come rhinos can gallop and baby elephants can't?
 
>> The conformation of elephants is an obvious adaptation to the full-grown
>> version/model.  If small ones cannot gallop, it's because of the conformation
>> NEEDED by large ones to keep legs directly under the vast bulk.

It's not your imagination, folks:  the double >> above is me, the single >
is Bishop.  See what I mean?


-- 
Ted Holden
HTE

Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Subject: Re: Creationists: EXPLAIN THIS -- the Brazil Nut Effect
Reply-To: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 16:04:55 GMT

In article <1992Aug21.173405.17394@city.cs>, lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun)
writes:
> In article <1992Aug21.030000.28954@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU>
dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes:
>>A challenge to creationists:
>>
>>Please explain how the entropy of a bag of mixed nuts decreases, when
>>you shake the bag with "undirected" energy.
> 
> Who says it decreases?

   A physics text?  The big nuts end up on top Lionel.  This is something you
should personally find comforting.  Until, of course, we extract the energy
from the system and the big nuts fall down and go boom.  
 
> --
> Lionel Tun   (lionel@cs.city.ac.uk)
> Vision Group, City University, London, EC1V 0HB. 071-477 8000 x 3889

Dan
Danwell@IASTATE.EDU
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: skroger@zeus.calpoly.edu (Seth L. Kroger)
Subject: Re: Science and God
Keywords: Science, God
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 22:37:18 GMT

julian@fraser.sfu.ca (Julian Shillcock) writes:
>salem@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Bruce Salem) writes:
>>	This is both an unsuported and arrogant assertion. Oh
>
>Certainly unsupported but not particularly arrogant. If you believe in Quantum mechanics the whole universe evolved to as to bring us into existence so
>that we could make observations on the history of the universe. This seems
>at least as untestable and/or arrogant.

No, that wouldn't necessarily follow.  It would only apply if you beleived
in ONE particular INTERPRETATION of QM (namely the Anthropic Principle).  I,
at least, don't buy that particular interpretation.

>julian


|======================================================================|
| Seth Kroger                       "If God made us in His image we    |
| skroger@pan.calpoly.edu               have certianly returned the    |
| Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo             compliment."  -Voltaire        |
Newsgroups: talk.origins,sci.skeptic
From: schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher)
Subject: Re: Shroud exposed at early date (Tim O'Neill)
Organization: CONVEX Computer Corporation, Richardson, Tx., USA
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 22:54:17 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In <1992Aug13.034055.26339@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes:
>>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
>Hmmmmmmmmmm, don't buy it. The image would look stretched if that was the case.

It does look stretched, as though it were draped over an OBJECT. I don't say
corpse, because no human body ever looked like the peculiarly and
characteristically distorted figure of the shroud image.  On the other hand,
it looks very much like other paintings and sculptures from 14th C Europe.




Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: ins450m@aurora.cc.monash.edu.au (T.F. Eccles)
Subject: Re: Evolution under High Gravity
Organization: Monash University, Melb., Australia.
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 08:06:01 GMT

m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:

>In article <1992Aug17.093847.1@skcla.monsanto.com> jjfink@skcla.monsanto.com writes:
>}Besides, look at our own world.  We have creatures that hug the ground, and
>}hundreds-feet high trees.  What is tall or short?  Why aren't there
>}40-foot-high dinos anymore?  We can't blame that on gravity.

>Don't know if I should tell you this, but...

>That is EXACTLY what TAlbottians & Velikovsites (personified by Ted Holden)
>believe.  The gravity on earth changed.

From some Science show, (Quantum) i recieved the impression
that the mega fauna declined, b/c of climate becoming cooler....

I don't know how much of that was mis-understood, b/c it doesn't
make much sense to me.

Eccles
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: corey@sdf.lonestar.org (Corey Carroll)
Subject: Opinions on _Evolution From Space_?
Organization: sdf Public Access UNIX, Dallas--unrestricted free shell access
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 02:14:39 GMT


Recently I went to the Dallas public library and got some books
on Evolution that the JW's _Life_ book quotes from.  I just
got a chance to look at _Evolution From Space_, by Fred
Hoyle, and Chandra Wickramasinghe.

They seem to propose that life could NOT have originated
by "chance", and that it might have come here from outer space
on asteroids or something, with life's biochemical problems
already solved.  This seems to just make the question regarding
the origin of life harder to answer, and it is not really an answer.  They
concluede their book talking about some form of 'Higeher intelligence"
and they say they don't believe in God, but in something as
an intelligent director of the origin of life.

In particular, the _Life_ book likes to quote from this
book rfegarding the chances of life forming spontaneously in
an inorganic soup.  Numbers such as 10^100 and
10^40,000 are regularly spewed out.

Is this book taken seriously by anyone in the sciences
today?  Is Hoyle a lunatic?  He's just an astronomer, after
all.

Or do the arguments in this book have any merit?  I would 
appreciate it if someone coulc tell me what
they know about the origin of life, and so on.  I am
confvinced that life has evolved, but i am not so easily convinced
that life can be traced back to a common ancestor, for 
instance.   I guess I'm becoming more agnostic, I'm
certainly not becoming a theist or anything...any help?
-- 
"All religions make me wanna throw up!"
"All religions make me sick!" - Dead Kennedys, Religious Vomit

corey@sdf.lonestar.org                       ..!uunet!convex!egsner!sdf!corey
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: Tim.ONeill@english.utas.edu.au (Tim O'Neill)
Subject: Re: Creationism and its debunking in Australia
Organization: University of Tasmania (Australia)
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 01:27:53 GMT

In article <1992Aug17.010524.29950@trl.oz.au>, jbm@hal.trl.OZ.AU (Jacques Guy) writes:
> 
> The Saturday edition of the Melbourne daily ("The Age") contained
> an article entitled 'The Boat People -- Scientists scuttle the
> "discovery" of Noah's ark'. I almost felt like typing it in and
> posting it here, but baulked at the task: some 5 or 6 tightly
> printed pages. The article is informative and very funny,
> thanks to one Ian Plimer, an Australian archaeologist who
> takes the mickey out of the Noah's ark finders. I'll just quote
> a few paragraphs to whet your appetite:

Ian Plimer has been doing some great work in publicising the idiocy of
creationism, with the help of Phillip Adams and the 'Age's' science
writer Graeme O'Neill (no relation!). The media has really been on the
scientists' side ever since Plimer made Allen S. Roberts (arkaeologist
extraordinaire) look like an idiot on a 'Current Affair' report (in
which I appeared briefly in a cameo performance as an outraged member
of the public).

Plimer is currently being taken to court by Roberts for defamation, and
the anti-creationists are gearing up for a shit-fight. While Plimer's style 
is confrontationist and flamboyant, he certainly knows how to use the media
and the creationists are running scared. Someone mentioned an article
criticising Plimer's tactics in 'Creation/Evolution' in a posting a 
few months ago. Could anyone elaborate? I don't agree with everything he
does, but when things get to the stage where eminent academics are bundled
out of creationist lectures by police for trying to ask questions from the
floor, where paleontologists get their shoulders wrenched by creationist
bully-boys trying to pull them out of their seats and where creationist
talks have guards armed with rubber truncheons patrolling the ailes, then
I say it's time to fight fire with fire. All these things are happening here.
Tim O'Neill 
Newsgroups: talk.origins