HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: henley@eng.auburn.edu (James Paul Henley)
Subject: Re: The Woman Deceived (was ? for SW)
Organization: Auburn University Engineering
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 15:01:49 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.005742.21919@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>
>	Interestingly enough, the part that states that men should
>treat women well also states that masters should treat their slaves
>well. And just as women should obey men, slaves should obey masters,
>all according to the Bible.
>
>/Loren


Let's put this into a different perspective.  The way I treat my wife is
with honor and respect.  Why?  Because that is what the Bible tells me
to do.  I submit, that's right, submit to my wife.  Why?  Because that's
what the Bible tells me to do.  I serve my wife, I mean like a servant.
Why?  Because that's what the Bible tells me to do.  

The rituals of chivalry are often looked upon as degrading to women.  
Usually that is because it is taken to mean that a woman is weak and
can't take care of herself.  I got a whole new perspective on that when
I visited my wife's family in an Eastern country.  I acted like a
Western gentleman - you know - opened the door for her, helped her sit down,
stood when she did, carried things for her.  It drove them crazy.  Why?
Because I was acting like a *SERVANT*.  She was supposed to be serving me,
not the other way around, according to their culture.  They scolded her to
no end for not being a good wife.  The picture Jesus gives of a good leader
is that of a servant.  That is why not too many men are willing to be a
good leader - they aren't willing to be a servant.


James P. Henley Jr.
Chemical Engineering Dept.
Auburn University
From: news@fedfil.UUCP (news)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Guiness on the teratorn
Date: 23 Jul 92 15:57:25 GMT
Organization: HTE

Central asians have been breeding eagles for size and strength for
at least 2000 years.  They can't get them beyond 25 lbs or so, as I've
noted (for the minority of t.o readers whose attention span goes beyond
22 lines or so), and at that size they lose the ability to take off from
flat ground.

I've noted that articles in Science in the early 80's noted a modern raptor,
the Argentine teratorn, with wingspan near 30', weight around 170 lbs.

Apparently they've thought about that a bit more.  Guiness (the 91 edition,
page 111), gives the Argentine teratorn's weight as 265 lbs.

Not that the 170 lb figure isn't sufficiently impossible in our world, the
perception of gravity being what it is now.  

Just that the 265 lb figure is more impossible.


-- 
Ted Holden
HTE

Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: henley@eng.auburn.edu (James Paul Henley)
Subject: Thermodynamics FAQ
Organization: Auburn University Engineering
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 16:57:31 GMT

I am posting a series of FAQs on Thermodynamics.  (and you thought I've
been twiddling my thumbs all this time). The purpose of the FAQs is to
correct a number of fallacies regarding the relationship between the
Laws of Thermodynamics and Evolutionary Theories.

The first 4 questions are addressed in the first FAQ.  Following FAQs may
address one or more of the remaining questions.

o What is Thermodynamics?
o What are the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics?
o How are the Laws of Thermodynamics applied to various systems?
o Does Snowflake formation violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics?
o How do you apply the Laws of Thermodynamics to Population Genetics?
o How do you apply the Laws of Thermodynamics to the Earth?
o How do you apply the Laws of Thermodymamics to the Universe?


The following references will be cited:

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

[2] _Introduction_to_Chemical_Engineering_Thermodynamics_, _Fourth_Edition_,
Smith and van Ness, McGraw-Hill, 1987

[3] _Classical_Thermodynamics_of_Nonelectrolyte_Solutions_, van Ness and
Abbott,  McGraw-Hill, 1982


James P. Henley Jr.
Chemical Engineering Dept.
Auburn University
From: bruce@tcom.stc.co.uk (Bruce Munro)
Subject: Re: Calling Young-earth Creationists
Organization: BNR Europe, New Southgate, London.
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 92 13:29:23 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.115606.202088@uctvax.uct.ac.za> fllant01@uctvax.uct.ac.za writes:
>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.

Don't you think it would be better to look at the evidence first before
subscribing to a theory?

Of course the whole Creationist movement is based upon trying to shoehorn
evidence to fit a ridiculous interpretation of a particular religious text.

-- 
Bruce Munro.  <bruce@tcom.stc.co.uk> || ...!mcsun!uknet!stc!bruce
BNR Europe Ltd, Oakleigh Rd South, London N11 1HB. 
Phone : +44 81 945 2174 or +44 81 945 4000 x2174
"There are no strangers, only friends we don't recognise" - Hank Wangford
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: kring@efes.physik.uni-kl.de (Thomas Kettenring)
Subject: Re: 9'th Category of Evidence / Saturn Myth details
Organization: FB Physik, Universitaet Kaiserslautern, Germany
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 11:49:53 GMT

In article <2841@fedfil.UUCP>, news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
>Versions of this basic picture show an astral body atop a magic mountain
>with HALF of a circular enclosure about it, variously to the left,
>above, to the right, and below the body.  The way I picture this is sort
>of like:
>
>
>                                                       ring dark on this side
>                                 ring lit up
>                                 this side      *   *
>                 sun                          *
>                      *
>                     ***                     *    *   *    small star(s)
>                      *                                     with ring
>                                              *      *
>                                                  *
>
>                                                  | flux tube
>                                                  |
>
>                                                  *  earth
>
>
>Talbott takes this as
>indicating that the ring about the astral body showed phases as does our
>moon now, during the various times of the antique day, and this also
>indicates that at the time when these drawings were made, shortly after
>the flood, that the light involved was reflected, most likely from our
>present sun.
>
>
>You can see that as the earth would spin in the diagram, the lit section
>of the ring would appear above, to one side, below, and finally to the
>other side of the star.  Talbott shows numerous representations of this in
>ancient art.

If that's a small star, why is the ring dark on the right side?
That means the star gives no light itself, or less light than the sun.
That means the ARE seasons on the earth, because the main source of light is
the sun.  This whole construction doesn't even come near a status where one
could even talk of "holding water".

You handle the planets like Lego stones: put that red one on the white one,
and you get what you want.  But planets don't those little naps and holes,
and you do NOT IN THE LEAST understand what holds them together.  Please read
the basics of physics and astronomy before you talk about physics and astro-
nomy!

BTW, if we take Ovid's Metamorphoses as a source for history, we could as well
put the story of the origin of lark, nightingale and hoopoe in the biology
books...("Prokne and Philomela", my favorite Metamorphosis)

-- 
--------------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

Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: adpeters@sunflower.bio.indiana.edu (Andy Peters)
Subject: Re: not understanding evolution
Organization: Program in Evolution, Ecology, and Behavior, Indiana University
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 14:49:52 GMT

In article <emc.711987509@data> emc@doe.carleton.ca (Eli Chiprout) writes:
>In <91431@bu.edu> colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby) writes:
>
> 
>>	Group selection can only occur under very restricted
>>conditions. It has only been unambiguously documented once,
>>and this was in a lab population of flour beetles manipulated
>>so that the criterion for group selection to operate was
>>fulfilled. (Many biologists, myself included, believe that
>>group selection was important in the evolution of eusocial
>>insects, however) The primary level of at which selection operates
>>is the individual organism; for this reason organisms do not
>>evolve to perform behaviors for the good of their species (or
>>group). This is because selfish individuals will always increase
>>in a population at the expense of altruists.
>
>This seems to be an oversimplification.  Social groups are known
>among higher primates, as well as conflict between groups.  Altruistic
>behaviour on the group level (rather than on the universal level) would
                                                                   ^^^^^
>benefit the individual as his group would remain coherent and better
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>able to win the conflict, and by ensuring that he/she would remain
>part of "the group", i.e. not be rejected by others because of the
>selfish traits.

Would benefit the individual, and therefore is an example of individual
selection, not group selection.  Group selection refers to selection
at the level of the group which does not translate to selection at
the level of the individual.

  There is always, it seems to me, 
>this dichotomy of group altruism verses personal selfishness.  The real
>winners are often selfish individual who manage to convince the others of
>their altruism.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here, but it sounds like
_individual_ selection at its "finest."

>Eli Chiprout

-- 
* 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
From: slinke@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (Steven Linke)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Noah's ark incompatible...with Noah's ark?
Date: 23 Jul 92 05:18:40 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Diego

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.

The "J version" includes 6:5-8; 7:1-5, part of 9, 10, 12, 16b, 17b,
22-23; 8:2b, 3a, 6-12, 13b, 20-22.

The "P version" includes 6:9-22; 7:6, 11, 13-16a, 17a, 18-21, 24;
8:1-2a, 3b-5, 13a, 14-19; and 9:1-17.

The J version includes 14 of each kind of bird on the Ark, and the P
version includes only 2 of each.  There are other contradictions
between the two versions as mentioned earlier.

If someone wants to believe that this event (or something similar)
actually ever HAPPENED is a whole different story.

-- 
Steve Linke
Salk Institute (Gene Expression Lab)
La Jolla, CA
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: sbradley@scic.intel.com (Seth Bradley)
Subject: Re: "Not enough helium" argument
Organization: Intel SCIC, Beaverton, OR
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 17:31:35 GMT

>>I've heard a few vague allusions to a creationist argument against
>>that there's not enough helium in the earth's atmosphere.

Here is a small portion of a much larger document I have on-line:

}  - Atmospheric helium should have built up more from U decay. 

This statement is false.  It falls precisely within predicted limits.

Please read:

Calculations on the Composition of the terrestrial Planets
        Reynolds & Summers, Journal of Geophysical Research vol 74, no 10
        May 15, 1969 p 2494

The formation of the Earth from Planetesimals
        Wetherill, Scientific American June 1981

Cloud, Preston E., Jr., "Atmospheric and Hydrospheric Evolution on
   the Primitive Earth", Science 160, (17 May 1968), pp 729 - 736
 
Mart, Michael H, "The Effect of a Planet's Size on the Evolution of
    its Atmosphere", published in some conference or another; I
    got a copy from the author. (ave Allen <davea@ll-vlsi.ARPA>)
Our Evolving Atmosphere
        Is Anyone There? by Isacc Asimov

The Evolution of the Atmosphere of the Earth
        Hart, Icarus, 33, 23-39, 1978
 
Evolution of the Atmosphere and Oceans
        Holland, Lazar & McCaffery, Nature vol 320, 6 mar 1986
 
Heat and Helium in the Earth
        O'Nions & Oxburgh, Nature, vol 306, 1 Dec 1983
 
The Atmosphere
        Ingersoll, Scientific American, Sept 1983
 
-- 
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
From: lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Some answers for Chuck (on evolution and marriage)
Date: 23 Jul 92 15:39:01 GMT
Organization: City University, London

(Andy Peters) writes:
>This is not a rhetorical question, please answer it.  What is more
>important:  believing in God, Jesus, etc., or following the moral
>guidelines set up in the Bible?  If I believe in your God, but
>break the rules, am I better or worse off in God's eyes than if I
>don't believe in him/her, but follow all of the rules?

Depends what you mean by `believing in God, Jesus, etc'. If you
mean `repent of your sins, turn to God and ask for forgiveness
based on Jesus's sacrifice in your place', then the answer would
be (a) believing is better than doing. Following all the rules
(such a thing is impossible anyway - maybe _try_ to follow all
the rules) will on its own do no good.

>I apologize for the slight transgression.  Oh well.

Oh well

--
Lionel Tun   (lionel@cs.city.ac.uk)
Vision Group, City University, London, EC1V 0HB. 071-477 8000 x 3889
Newsgroups: talk.origins,sci.astro
From: mab@wdl39.wdl.loral.com (Mark A Biggar)
Subject: Re: stars & carbon
Organization: Loral Western Development Labs
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 21:11:02 GMT

In article <btd.711738938@pv7413.vincent.iastate.edu> btd@iastate.edu (Benjamin T Dehner) writes:
>>And given that some such event has too occur first, how old would the
>>universe (heavy in H, HE & a touuch of Li) have to be for a star to
>>form, age, zap, then a new reform from the waste (i.e. how long ago COULD
>>life-as-we-know-it form someplace?)
>A supermassive star can form and go boom in about 10-20 million years.  This
>number is stronly dependant on the metalicity (percent of stuff heavier than
>helium) present.  I would hazard a guess that a couple of billion years may
>suffice to form a region of heavy elements that may work for forming life.
>As an oblique answer to your question, "long, long ago, in a galaxy ..".
>In this neck of the woods, life forming somewhere else a few million years ago
>would not be unreasonable, I think.

The best current guess it that our star is in the 3rd or 4th generation
of stars formed in our galaxy.

On a differnt tack, this has been proposed as a partial solution to the Fermi
paradox (Why no E.T visitors),  in that earlier star system would not contain
enough metals to support a HiTech civilization and that we could easily be
first!

--
Mark Biggar
mab@wdl1.wdl.loral.com
From: swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Hoof-in-Holden Disease
Date: 29 Jul 92 21:53:43 GMT
Reply-To: swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <Bs10rM.5q4@world.std.com> twalters@world.std.com (Tim Walters) writes:
|
|>* 3) "What kept this radiation from killing all life forms?
|>
|>I've answered this before also.  Luck.  Most of the life on this earth
|>WAS killed off at the time of the flood.  As Plato has the Egyptian sage
|>telling Solon, we are descendants of survivors, many times over.
|
|Luck, huh. Why don't you find a couple of books about what radiation
|really does to life forms? Especially in the quantities your're
|talking about? Don't do it on a full stomach, though.

Good recommendation.  Just the sanitized news pictures from Chernobyl
were rather stomach turning.  A full blown high dose rate study would
be down right gross.

Look, I know something about radiation, it being in the family, so to
speak (my father is a radiation biologist), and the dose rates required
for Ted's mutation rate are high enough to fry cockroaches.  Any mere
humans would just fall to pieces (fairly literally - radiation sickness
is *gross*).  Really, rates in the thousands of REM's are just simply
*fatal*, period, end of statement.  (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).
-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: ds0007@buhao (Dale Skiba)
Subject: Re: The Woman Deceived (was ? for SW)
Organization: Medtronic, Inc.
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 13:11:39 GMT

lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
: 
: 	If you want to see some juicy examples of Biblical sexism, check
: this out...
: 
: Sexism (it is hard to get a Bible banger on this one, but some of them
: vehemently deny being sexist) 


Let's be careful to keep to the subject. Otherwise Chuck will get distracted
by side issues and not answer the real question.

The Bible, when literally interpretated, is inherently sexist.  If EVERY
word of it is to be taken with literal authority, it commands you to be
sexist.  I don't think too many people will argue with that. 

Also, many people who claim to be literalists (Bible bangers) try not to
be not sexist.  There are a few exceptions, but most feel that it is OK
for women to teach Sunday School.

This is the dilemma.  How can one who claims to be a Literalist feel it
is OK NOT to be sexist. 

They say it is OK to use apologetic arguments involving human understanding
to resolve this sticky sexism issue.  Many of these arguments are quite good
and I do not wish to criticize them.  The problem is that they feel it is
NOT OK to use similar apologetic arguments involving human understanding to
resolve the sticky Genesis issue. 

-
Dale Skiba
Newsgroups: talk.origins,alt.religion.kibology
From: amorgan@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Crunchy Frog)
Subject: Re: Calling Young-earth Creationists
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 15:28:07 GMT

In article <BryLrs.Bus@news.cso.uiuc.edu> cmaier@uiuc.edu writes:
>In <1992Jul23.115606.202088@uctvax.uct.ac.za> fllant01@uctvax.uct.ac.za writes:
>
>>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?

Depends.  If you believe things you see whilest stoned out of your mind
I have some herbs that might help.  Other than that, not really.

>>Anthony Faull.
>
>Your best source for info would be:
>
>The Institute for Creation Research
>P.O. Box 2667
>El Cajon, CA 92091

.. deleted ..

>The best line of evidence is simply the fact that there is no 
>physical evidence of
>human existence prior to the time of the Floood.

There is no physical evidence of human existence prior to the Coming
of the Large Chested Women as so vividly recounted in the Book Of Chad.
This is, of course, evidence for the beliefs of the Zen Kibologists. 

>That is , of course, if you
>discount the vivid tales and a coffin full of mouldy ape teeth that 
>paleoanthropologists would have us believe mean something.
>
>Hopefully, they will soon make their materials available on diskette so we
>in the newsgroups can 'Flood' the world with this important information.

If the 'flood' of information is as big as the Biblical flood, I don't
think we will have any real problems.

>chuck

C Frog
From: slinke@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (Steven Linke)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Noah's ark incompatible...with Noah's ark?
Date: 24 Jul 92 07:51:22 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Diego

In article <henley.920723114404@wilbur.eng.auburn.edu> henley@eng.auburn.edu (James Paul Henley) writes:
>
>    God told Noah to board the ark, and take with him his family and seven
>    [pairs]* of each clean (edible) animal and bird.

You must be reading a different Bible.  My Bible reads more like
this:

  Genesis 6:19-20

    -Two of EVERY kind of bird
    -Two of EVERY kind of animal
    -Two of EVERY creeping thing of the ground

  Genesis 7:2-3

    -14 of all CLEAN animals
    - 2 of all UNCLEAN animals
    -14 of all birds

  The references to clean animals, unclean animals, and birds are
  all clearly separated.  Assuming that the birds mentioned in
  Genesis 3 are "clean" is reading between the lines.

We could also extend the logic of your SEQUENTIAL treatment of
the two verses (as opposed to their being repititions of the same
command).  If they are treated as sequential events, maybe there
were FOUR of all unclean animals and SIXTEEN of all clean animals.

Four brontosauruses (brontosauri?) on the Ark would have taken up an
awful lot of room.  Or, when God commanded Noah to gather EVERY
living thing of ALL flesh, did he exclude them?

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

I don't know.  Especially since he had already commanded Noah (in
Act 1 [Genesis 6:21]) to "Also take with [him] EVERY sort of food that
is eaten."  Seems a bit redundantly repetitious.  :-)  Especially in
light of your sequential interpretation.  Weren't unclean animals a
"sort of food that [was] eaten"?

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

Uh.....I also wonder what would happen to the gazelles and the
caribou and the zebra and all the other prey of the carnivorous
animals such as lions and tigers?  After the tigers first meal they
would be wiped out forever.  But that's a whole other subject. 

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

Logical to those who already know what they WANT to read and what
they would prefer to ignore, maybe.

-- 
Steve Linke
Salk Institute (Gene Expression Lab)
La Jolla, CA
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: lindsay+@cs.cmu.edu (Donald Lindsay)
Subject: Quote
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 92 04:03:47 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In the novel "No Enemy But Time", by Michael Bishop, I find:

"First, a quotation from the pens of Richard Leakey [...] and Roger
Lewin (erstwhile editor of New Scientist): 'As a biological response
to female sexuality, human males have evolved a penis that is larger
than any other primate, including the gorilla whose body bulk is
almost three times that of a man's.'"

If the novel isn't playing fast and loose, then this quote deserves
to hang on many walls. To those who can't see why it's deserving, I
say: read again, more carefully.
-- 
Don		D.C.Lindsay 	Carnegie Mellon Computer Science