HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: learn to read, James
Date: 30 Jul 92 21:42:09 GMT
Organization: animal -- coelomate -- deuterostome

In article <henley.920730111300@wilbur.eng.auburn.edu> henley@eng.auburn.edu (James Paul Henley) writes:
>In article <1992Jul29.192240.164705@zeus.calpoly.edu> 
skroger@zeus.calpoly.edu (Seth L. Kroger) writes:

>>What the heck does thermo and such concepts as _useful_ work have to do with
>>natural selection and evolution?!  I don't see how you can make the
>>connection since they are based on completely different fundamentals.

>Woah there Nellie!  Are you saying that biological processes *DO NOT* 
>have to abide by the laws of Thermodynamics?

	No, learn to read for comprehension. Mr. Kroger said two
_specific_ biological processes (selection and evolution) are
fundamentally different than processes that involve useful work.
He is correct. Evolution is a change in the gene pool. Several
mechanisms can bring about this change, none of them are forces.
A gene pool is not a mass that can be accelerated. It is not
useful to try to describe evolution (change in allele frequencies)
in terms of thermodynamic processes, because evolution is not a
thermodynamic process.

>Either they do, or they don't.  If they do, then those laws should be able
>to predict things in biological processes, including Natural Selection
>and Evolution.  If they don't, well...

	They don't. BTW, evolution (the process) has been directly
observed -- if you reach the conclusion that it cannot due to the
laws of thermo, you've obviously screwed up somewhere.

>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"
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: arsmith@nyx.cs.du.edu (Alan Smith)
Subject: Re: Shroud exposed at early date (Tim O'Neill)
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 92 06:26:50 GMT


I seem to recall reading in a chem text that they radiocarbon dated the
shroud of Turin at about 1276 or something like that. (I don't think they
were that precise, but you get my point)

Big Al.  Who would want to date a radiocarbon anyway?
From: maier@romulus (Chuck Maier)
Subject: Re: The Woman Deceived (was ? for SW)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 02:39:04 GMT

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.

>>>will suffer not a woman to teach, nor unsurp authority over


>if I choose to, I can.  But you cannot, because you are a literalist.
>Or doesn't that mean what I thought it meant?	If it is the literal

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.

>reason it is so fervently embraced by those who crave power over, and
>why it is so terribly feared by those that value freedom.  It is that
>you, Chuck Maier, and anyone else who cares to pick and peck his way
>through the Book, can ultimately support almost any position in the

I give as many verses as I know of on the subject all the way
through.  That's the only way to do it.

>world by application of selected parts of the dogma.  And the reason
>that the women are to be kept ignorant is so that they will not ask
>intelligent questions that may lead to them obtaining their own
>freedom.

Wherever the gospel has been preached and the Bible believed, women and
other minorities have been liberated,  educational and literacy standards
have been raised, and the general standards of living been raised.
Nobody's perfect, but the Christian world has a far better record than
the eastern countries where women are actually treated as you've 
described.

However, where the authority of God and the man are undermined, women
are also deceived into a world of divorce, no spiritual headship for
their kids, etc. .

>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.

>belief in the sanctity of your current mindset are immutable, and
>not simply a tactical retreat, that person has not learned the
>simple lessons of history.  But I won't forget.  I will not ever
>forget.

If you'd read anything I've posted on the subject, you'd see my whole 
point is showing that men are not taking their role of service, primarily,
to the family and the corporate body.

>rob derrick
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Origin of Petroleum (was Re: animals predated plants, James)
Date: 31 Jul 92 11:16:29 GMT
Organization: LLNL


	While we are considering the question of the origin of
petroleum, let us not forget the possibility of algae or bacteria or
both.

	Thomas Gold has proposed that petroleum is produced from the
remains of bacteria deep within the Earth that feed on methane seeping
from the Earth's interior. Not surprisingly, he also believes that
natural gas is not biogenic.

	Any comments about Thomas Gold's theory?
From: henley@eng.auburn.edu (James Paul Henley)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Was: Thermodynamics FAQ, Now: Pardon me while I rant.
Date: 28 Jul 92 16:50:15 GMT
Organization: Auburn University Engineering



Sorry to rehash the same post, but *I AM MAD*. 


In article <1992Jul25.194857.19939@techbook.com> mongo@techbook.com (Max Webb) writes:
>
>Yes I did. Did you even write it? Your special definition of closed
>is not to be found in any reference on thermo I have consulted. I

Are these sources mystical, or are you pulling a flim flam?
It's real easy to prove you are not, GIVE THE REFERENCES.

>believe that this is something that you have copied out of
>creationist literature.
>
>In the FAQ, I mentioned energy transfer by
>>electrical work, mechanical work, chemical work, radiation, convection,
>>and conduction.  You are confused about what a closed system is.
>
>Sadly, you are the one who is confused. Recall the reference to
>Prigogine's nobel prize earlier? Could you please interpret his work
>in terms of your peculiar definition of closed?



Come on some of you people who call yourselves scientists.  Make a stand.
Either tell these poor fools that they are wrong, or tell me why all the
sources that I have are wrong.  If you think this is making me mad, you
are absolutely right.  I'll shut up for a few days, and see if you can
come to grips with reality on your own.

My sources so far:

_Physical_Chemistry_, Berry Rice and Ross, John Wiley & Sons
_Basic_Physical_Chemistry_, Moore, Prentice Hall
_Fundamentals_of_Engineering_Thermodynamics_, Howell and Buckius, McGraw Hill
_Introduction_to_Chemical_Engineering_Thermodynamics_, Smith and van Ness,
   McGraw Hill
_Introduction_to_Engineering_Thermodynamics_, Silver and Nydahl, West Pub.


>Regards,
>	Max G. Webb
>-- 
>mongo@techbook.COM          ATT: 1-503-227-1284
>SNAIL: 1983 nw Flanders #205, Portland OR 97209


James P. Henley Jr.
Chemical Engineering Dept
Auburn University
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: Scientific Method
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 21:23:05 GMT

In article <1992Jul27.234045.29052@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, lfoard@Turing.ORG
(Lawrence C. Foard) writes:
> In article <Bs26H3.GtE@news.cso.uiuc.edu> cmaier@uiuc.edu writes:
> >In <1992Jul27.124651.27652@linus.mitre.org> jmeritt@rod.mitre.org (Jim
Meritt) writes:
> >>                What experiments have been conducted (especially, what
> >>                        experiments have been done, or are possible,
> >>                        that can _FALSIFY_ creationism?
> >
> >Have functional complexity arise without adding intelligence. 
> 
> Thats been done, take a look at computer recreations in last months
> scientific american. I posted my own version of a genetic algorithm
> both here and on comp.programming. It solves a magic square problem
> in several minutes which I have no idea how to solve. If you want I
> will repost it. Or post your own problem which you believe cannot
> be solved by evolution.

  I think I can go even one better.  There is a person who wrote a genetic
algorithm for generating core wars programs.  He started with 1000 random
programs, competed them against each other and against some past core wars
winners, killed off those that didn't do well (aka natural selection) and mated
the remainder.

  After only 7 generations a hefty percentage of the evoluted (word?) programs
were beating programs written by humans.  That's right, random mutation was
better than "complexity" due to "intelligence".

  I'l dig up the references on this one.

***********************************************************************
* Warren Kurt   *  "In our country we have those three unspeakably    *
* vonRoeschlaub *   precious things: freedom of speech, freedom of    *
* kv07@iastate  *   conscience, and the prudence never to practice    *
*               *   either." - Mark Twain                             *
***********************************************************************
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: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 15:14:11 GMT

In article <1992Jul20.192129.22403@javelin.sim.es.com> ronwill@sierra.sim.es.com (Ron Williams) writes:
>In article <henley.920720115545@wilbur.eng.auburn.edu>, henley@eng.auburn.edu (James Paul Henley) writes:
> 
>> "But do not forget one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a
>> thousand years, and a thousand years is like a day."
>> 
>> II Peter 3:8  _NIV_
>> 
>> James P. Henley Jr.
>
>Yea, well, ... so what.  What are you trying to say?  Are you saying that the earth
>was created over a period of 6000 years?  Add that to the 6000 years of biblical 
>history and that adds up to 12,000 years.  That still does nothing to explain the 
>4,000,000,000+ years of the earth's natural history.
>-- 
>Ron Williams
>ronwill@sierra.sim.es.com
>Salt Lake City, UT
>
>	Utah - the state that wants to put a Pizza Hut in the
> 	middle of Zion National Park.
>

Why do I have the feeling that I am going to need to spend the next month
trying hopelessly to defend myself against all manner of charges about
what I supposedly said, and what I meant to say, and what I implied, and
what I insinuated?  Can't you take a simple statement as a simple statement
without expanding it and twisting it beyond all recognition?

What is the relevance of the verse that I quoted?  I think that it is very
relevant, because that verse convinced me that the "days" in Genesis were
not necessarily meant to be 24 hour periods, in other words, evidence that
"day" could very well be referring to a period of time other than 24 hours.  
It's that simple.

If you can't accept that, then email me privately and we'll debate what
my insinuations, interpretations, implications, hidden agendas, and
motivations were for saying it.  Otherwise cease and desist this insane
line of attack.

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

Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: amorgan@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Crunchy Frog)
Subject: Re: Attenuated Nonsense (Lengthy!)
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 15:41:24 GMT

In article <711696069.11784@zooid.guild.org> 
  gecko@zooid.guild.org (GECKO) writes:
> 
> Ted "Thickie" Holden writes: 
> 
>>    Mammoths were as big and bigger than the largest 
>>    elephants, however, and pliestocene art clearly shows them 
>>    galloping around.  Over and over again, this same dilemma, things 
>>    which can't happen in our world being the norm in the antediluvian 
>>    world. 
> 
>    Smegma!  Mammoths could not gallop any more than elephants can; 
>    They're not built for it.  I'll warrant their are NO depictions 
>    of mammoths with all four feet airborne simultaneously!  This is 
>    not to suggest that ANY prehistoric paintings should be thought 
>    of as scientifically accurate... 

Ya ever noticed that in all these old paintings there is no
perspective?  I guess the world was two dimensional up until
the Renaissance.

C Frog
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Why bible nonsense in t.o.????
From: lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Date: 29 Jul 1992 18:53 MST  
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <28JUL199211404367@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu>, lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) writes...
>C.S. Lewis was no great shakes as a philosopher, though he thought he
>was until he was trounced in a debate with (Catholic) philosopher
>Elizabeth Anscombe.  The result of this debate so troubled him that
>he had grave doubts about many of his arguments for the remaining few
>years of his life.  (For the details of this debate, see the recent
>(1986?) biography of Lewis by an author whose name escapes me at the
>moment, but I think it's A. Wilson.  This is the biography which raised
>a bit of a fuss because it reported on such things as Lewis' heavy
>drinking and his extramarital affairs.)

I got the year wrong, but it's
   A.N. Wilson, _C.S. Lewis: A Biography_, 1990, Norton (hardback)
                                           1991, Fawcett Columbine (paperback)

Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
From: kachun@astro.as.arizona.edu (Ka Chun Yu)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Thermodynamics FAQ
Date: 29 Jul 92 21:46:36 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ

In article <henley.920729101144@wilbur.eng.auburn.edu> henley@eng.auburn.edu (James Paul Henley) writes:
>In article <1992Jul28.190130.11647@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> kachun@astro.as.arizona.edu (Ka Chun Yu) writes:
>>No.  Work is just the integral of an applied force over distance.  You don't
>>need an "opposing" force acting against the first force.  If you accelerate
>>a rocket in space free of any other forces over a certain distance, you've
>>done work.
>
>If you accelerate a rocket, the only way to do it free of an opposing force
>is if the rocket is massless, and thus devoid of *inertia*.  Inertia *is*
>the opposing force in this case.  Think about it.  Also, the thrust of the
>rocket engines is converted to kinetic energy of the rocket.  Energy
>conversion.  To stop the rocket, you will have to do work.  If it lands
>nose down on the moon, then that work will be the displacement of lunar
>soil, and the deformation of the rocket.  The two forces opposing
>the kinetic energy are friction and tensile strength of the rocket.  
>Think about it.  *AND* if the rocket and some other object have a perfectly
>elastic collision, then no kinetic energy will be lost, ie. no energy 
>conversion.  However, the rocket will still have done work in accelerating
>the object with which it collides.  If it is a *totally* immovable object,
>then the rocket will retain 100% of it's kinetic energy (in a perfectly
>elastic collision)
>Take some physics.
>


I have taken quite a bit of physics thank you.

Again it looks like you're confusing terminology here as was the case with
"closed" and "isolated" systems in your thermo FAQ.  "Inertia" is not a 
force in any sense of the word used by physicists.  It's a concept applied
to objects with mass and I still don't think physicists have an entirely
clear grasp of it yet.  Force is merely mass times acceleration.  If in a
reference frame a mass is not accelerating, then *no force* is acting upon it.

In a rocket, chemical energy is converted to the kinetic energy of the propel-
lant as it's being spewed out of the back of the rocket.  The rocket will
move forward because of the conservation of momentum.

For your example, you can calculate how much work is done in decelerating the
rocket to zero speed on the surface of the moon by using the integral formula
I had stated in my last posting, which in more explicit terms is

  {\bf W} = \int_{x_1}^{x_2} {\bf F} \cdot d{\bf s},

or the integral over the range x_1 and x_2 of the dot product of vector F (the
force) and the distance differential vector ds.

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


--
*Ka Chun Yu                 * "Deputy dog dog a ding dang depa depa deputy     *
*kachun@as.arizona.edu      *  dog dog a ding dang depa depa . . ."            *
*                           *                         --"Don't Let's Start"    *
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: bruce@tcom.stc.co.uk (Bruce Munro)
Subject: Re: Elephants CAN'T gallop, damn it!!!
Organization: BNR Europe, New Southgate, London.
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 92 15:31:10 GMT

In article <2832@fedfil.UUCP> news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:

Still haven't worked out how to get a proper user ID setup then, Ted?

>In article <1992Jul21.183247.3020@desire.wright.edu>, sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
> 
>> Ted, you have been told on numerous occasions that elephants can't gallop due
>> to their conformation.  
>
>Face it, Sue...  you and your cohorts aren't really bright enough to be telling
>me ANYTHING.

Insult is the last refuge of the incompetent.

>Your "You have been told" refrain isn't adding anything to the conversation.
>
>Elephants don't gallop because they're too fricking heavy.

Rubbish.

>> In case you don't know what that word means, it 
>> means the way they are built.  Ostriches and kangaroos can't gallop either.
>
>Ostriches and kangaroos are essentially bipeds.  
>
>> And Mammoths were not larger than elephants, you've been told that repeatedly
>> also.
>
>Maybe best that you should repeatedly tell the authors of Guiness.  Page 111
>of their 1991 edition mentions fragmentary remains indicating a shoulder
>height of 14.5'.  I believe that's just a bit bigger even than jumbo.  Not
>a whole lot bigger, mind you, but big enough that a mammoth should not be 
>able to gallop.
>
>That was the whole point.  I have at least one picture of a big mammoth,
>galloping.

What picture? Where is it? Which photographer took it. Some cave painting
is about the flimsiest evidence you could possibly imagine, although
you do plumb some abysmal depths for your theories.

>Russians probably see more pictures of mammoths while coming up through
>school (the Russians, not the mammoths), than we do, and I've asked a number of them about this.  Several have claimed to have seen pictures of mammoths
>galloping.

Oh right. This settles it. "Some Russians" claim to have seen pictures of
galloping mammoths.

>Again, this cannot happen in our world at present.

True. There are no living mammoths.

I am coming to the conclusion that Ted Holden is just a big joke and that
somewhere, someone's have a great laugh at the people who spend time
disputing his obviously ridiculous claims.

-- 
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: starpath@bard.MIT.EDU (David E. Hollingsworth)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Chuck makes his motives clear
Date: 26 Jul 92 13:09:00 GMT
Organization: Massachvsetts Institvte of Technology

In article <BrIJ9H.Mnt@news.cso.uiuc.edu> maier@romulus (Chuck Maier)  
writes:
> How can we expect young people nowadays to follow a faith that has no
> foundation?

In article <Brspz2.A5s@news.cso.uiuc.edu> maier@romulus (Chuck Maier)  
writes:
> If Adam was real and the Fall was real, I know what SIN is - me!  It's
> very simple.  Otherwise you get whole movements teaching falsities
> like 'venial' SINS and 'mortal' SINS.

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.
..
> On what authority are we going to say it's [a different subject] wrong?
> I doubt they are going to be interested in our personal opinion.  And
> if we are going to appeal to the authority of The Lord from the
> Scriptures, it is clear that he taught from the original created order
> as fact and foundation for the marital relationship. 

In article <BrsxAp.DGt@news.cso.uiuc.edu> maier@romulus (Chuck Maier)  
writes:
> Andy Peters has relegated the holy institution of monogomaous
> marriage to some evolutionary happenchance, which may not be universal
> for humans, and is the subject of some scientific debate as to why
> it came about in the first place.  Of course, Mr. Peters is certainly
> correct, if there were such a thing as evolution.  His assertions would
> certainly be valid.  

--
David Hollingsworth starpath@bard.mit.edu Send me NeXTMail or kill me
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"Did your problems start _before_ you were born?"
        --A television advertisement for Dianetics that mostly
consists of a shot of a fetus crying after hearing its parents argue.
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher)
Subject: Re: Why bible nonsense in t.o.????
Organization: CONVEX Computer Corporation, Richardson, Tx., USA
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 00:23:03 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 <1992Jul28.035821.3770@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> dreiswig@nyx.cs.du.edu (Darwin E. Reiswig) writes:

>I suggest you take a look at where your morals actually came from.

My morals come from a sense of responsibility toward the members
of the society I live in, under the principle that what's bad
for the hive cannot be good for the bee. You might check out
a little book called "The Evolution of Cooperation", which describes
mathematical (computer) experiments of the circumstances under
which an improved version of the golden rule will arise. 

Give the other members of your species a little credit for being able
to figure how they ought to act, without some Big Kahuna in the sky
telling or threatening them.