HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cdminter@icaen.uiowa.edu (Corey D Minter)
Subject: Re: Moon Dust
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 23:56:31 GMT
Organization: University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA
X-Newsreader: NN version 6.4.19

hyde@cs.dal.ca (Bill Hyde) writes:

>	Does this tell you something about
>	their honesty?

I think that is not it at all.  This phenomena may show that we are
talking about a group of people that is not interested in surveying
all the information that is out there.  They tend to put a lot of
effort in drudging up 'older' references only rather than doing
some real work and seeing what is out there and deciding for themselves.

So, I don't think it is a matter of honesty directly, though it comes
to that when their beliefs are exposed.  Then they might find it hard
to overcome the fact that they were wrong.  
-- 
cdminter@icaen.uiowa.edu / cdminter@eng.uiowa.edu (Qlink: EarthsWake)
"The face of a child can say it all, especially the mouth part of the face."
"We tend to scoff at the beliefs of the ancients.  But we can't scoff at them
personally, to their faces, and this is what annoys me."  -Jack Handy, SNL
From: brinkman@si151a.llnl.gov
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Moon dust
Date: 25 Jan 93 22:06:46 GMT


   In article <1k1a58INN3d1@dmsoproto.ida.org> rlg@omni (Randy garrett)
asks...

> One piece of evidence advanced for a young universe concerns
> the depth of dust on the moon.  In my younger years, I remember
> quite a bit of concern about the depth likely to be encountered
> on the moon.  Many people expected 20 - 40 feet of the stuff
> based on calculated accumulations.  Fortunately for Neil 
> Armstrong, there turned out to be much less -- of order
> a few inches.  Anyone know what the accepted reconcilation
> of the discrepancy is?

   The "accepted reconciliation of the discrepency" is that the "measured"
accumulation rate was off by more than a couple orders of magnitude.  I don't
have the refences at hand, but I am sure others would be more than happy to
provide both the references and a more complete description of this "accepted
reconciliation".

   Your comment, "Fortunately for Neil Armstrong, there turned out to be
much less -- of the order [of] a few inches", makes me curious as to a
related point, however.  Maybe you can help me out.

   If scientists REALLY expected there to be a 20-40 foot accumulation of
lunar dust, why do you think they would let the first Apollo launch go off as
scheduled?  Doesn't this suggest a rather depraved indifference towards human
life?  Don't you find it rather difficult to believe that not even one
scientists would say, "Hey, wait a minute.  You are sending those fine
astronauts off to their death!"  Not only are you suggesting that the Apollo
11 launch was tantamount to premeditated murder, you are suggesting that there
was a global conspiracy of scientists to commit the crime.

   Here are the logical interpretations one can put on your claim that Neil
Armstrong was fortunate:

1) There was a global scientific conspiracy to kill the Apollo 11 astronauts.

2) None of the Apollo launches ever occurred, and a scientific conspiracy
   is now in place to hide this fact.

3) The story that scientists in the 1960's believed that there was a 20-40
   foot accumulation of moon dust is nothing more than a myth. 

As a scientist, which of these interpretations do you think is the most
viable?

--
Matt Brinkman
brinkman@edseq1.llnl.gov
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: tycchow@riesz.mit.edu (Timothy Y. Chow)
Subject: Re: Topic for Discussion?
Organization: None.  This saves me from writing a disclaimer.
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 93 02:36:52 GMT

In article <1jq3p3INNa89@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
<Secondly, the obvious "escape" here is to say "Well, micro-
<evolution doesn't actually consult a species representation,
<it's just that eventually cumulative micro-evolution produces
<non-functional organisms.   In fact, that's not an escape,
<because now you're saying that the representation "valid species"
<is a function of the species+environment, and micro-evolution
<can continue to produce cumulatively differing changes as long
<as it stays within this representation.   But the information
<in "species+environment" certainly changes over time.   In fact,
<that's the point, isn't it.

I don't understand your argument.  Imagine a "genotype graph" where each
node is a genotype and the edges represent microevolutionary steps.  Why
can't there be a set of nodes that is "isolated" in the sense that it is
bordered by genotypes which code seriously dysfunctional organisms that
can't exist in any environment short of an intensive care unit?  I think
you need to appeal to what we actually know about extant genotypes; I don't
think you can argue your case purely on extremely general considerations,
as you seem to be trying to do.
-- 
Tim Chow     tycchow@math.mit.edu
Where a calculator on the ENIAC is equipped with 18,000 vacuum tubes and weighs
30 tons, computers in the future may have only 1,000 vacuum tubes and weigh
only 1 1/2 tons.                               ---Popular Mechanics, March 1949
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: bobsarv@microsoft.com (Bob Sarver)
Subject: Re: Duane T. Gish, Ph. D.
Date: 28 Jan 93 03:07:06 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.
Keywords: info requested
Distribution: usa


/ CLAIM #2:  "Darwin cited the giraffe as an outstanding example of
/ natural selection.  Supposedly, as a result of extended droughts, the
/ supply of green leaves could be obtained only at the top of the trees,
/ and therefore the shorter necked giraffe died off.  And the giraffes
/ which grew longer necks survived.  However, there is no evidence
/ whatever in the fossil record or elsewhere that giraffes with short
/ necks have ever existed. 

Well, I can't address this part, my not being a paleontoligist, but the
following part of the question:


/ And what would have happened to young
/ giraffes with relatively short necks?"

is pretty damn obvious.  The proto-giraffes were mammals.  The young
proto-giraffes only had to be able to reach as high as their mother's
udder to feed.  By the time they gained any considerable size as
adolescents, they would be reaching the lower branches of the same trees
their parents were feeding on.
From: justinf@cco.caltech.edu (Justin Fang)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Yet Another Saturn Myth Variant
Followup-To: talk.origins
Date: 22 Jan 1993 00:24:22 GMT
Organization: none whatsoever
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: macintosh50.cco.caltech.edu

In article <238@fedfil.UUCP>, news@fedfil.UUCP (news) wrote: 
> In article <justinf-210193001604@macintosh50.cco.caltech.edu^, justinf@cco.caltech.edu (Justin Fang) writes:
> ^ In article <234@fedfil.UUCP>, news@fedfil.UUCP (news) wrote: 
> ^ > Unfortunately, I do not possess a time machine to allow me to see precisely
> ^ > which form (of those proposed) the Saturnian configuration actually took,
> ^ > or to tell you precisely how it worked.  Perhaps the earth was being held
> ^ > in an electro-magnetic baricenter, and the gravitational forces were yet
> ^ > unequal.
> ^ 
> ^ "electro-magnetic baricenter"? "gravitational forces were yet unequal"?
> ^ Hahahahahahahaha!
> 
> You don't like big words...  "center of electromagnetic attraction" then.

Actually, I love big words... :) What I can't stand are big words used
incorrectly, as Ted has a penchant for doing. No matter how you word it,
Ted, it's still junk.

I've noticed other people posting their own pet "theories" for the "reduced
felt effect of gravity in antediluvian times". Well, I have mine. It's more
or less consistent with modern physics, and simple, too (all you really
have to throw out is some seismological readings...). And, unlike the
"Saturn myth", it's easily provable. None of this "electromagnetic
barycenter" stuff. The gravity of the Earth was lessened because it's mass
was less. (pseudoscientific technobabble mode on.)

Sometime between then and now, the Earth underwent a minimal velocity
collision with a quantum black hole. The singularity is curently at rest
with respect to the Earth at the gravitational barycenter of the Earth,
resulting in increased gravitational acceleration. After the inital event,
matter intake rates have remained relatively low due to a combination of:
radiation from the accretion disk, Hawking radiation, the strong
electromagnetic fields in the core, and the electromagnetic fields
generated by the spin of the singularity, which we may assume has an
electric charge. In the approximately 10^3 to 10^4 years between the
initial event and the present time the increase of the singularity mass has
been insignificant with respect to the total mass of the Earth. However,
the ratio between the two can eventually be expected to reach 1.

(psuedoscientific technobabble mode off. See, Ted? Easy. Total junk, but to
a casual observer I sound like I know what I'm talking about, which you
don't now.)
 
> -- 
> Ted Holden
> HTE

Justin Fang (justinf@cco.caltech.edu)
                               This space intentionally left blank.
From: cotera@woods.ulowell.edu
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Evolution on Christian TV
Date: 25 Jan 93 19:29:43 GMT
Organization: University of Lowell

In article <1993Jan13.052936.7110@panix.com>, arandia@panix.com (Joel Arandia) writes:
> 
> 	Well, watching tv late one night, I saw Pat Robertson reviewing the
> year's top stories.  I was surprised to see him cover the news on "the new
> dinosaur".  I really didn't catch the whole thing.  But it is my guess
> that Pat Robertson supports the sciences and not creationism.

I'm almost 100% positive that Pat Robertson is neither an evolutionist nor a
theistic evolutionist.

> 	Why?  Because later that evening I happened to catch "The World 
> Tomorrow" by the same people who brought you "The Plain Truth" magazine.

Pat Robertson and the people from "The World Tomorrow" are not of the same
religion.

> They said that "Many people in America that believe, wrongly, that the Earth
> is only thousands of years old."  They went on to say that sciences tells
> us the nature of God.  And the Bible tells us the Word of God.  Faith is not
> a substitute for science.  And vice versa.  They even quoted Hawkin's
> "mind of God" statement.
> 	Pretty cool stuff huh?  It's very comforting to see religious figures
> in support of science.  I am aware that the Roman Catholics openly accept
> and support study of evolution.  And that Episcopalians, Methodists, and
> Presbyterians also accept "theistic" evolution.
> 
> joel d. arandia

It's interesting to note that a Gallup poll, either from '91 or '92, said that
something like 80% of Americans don't believe in evolution.
--Ray Cote
From: skroger@zeus.calpoly.edu (Seth L. Kroger)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: FAQ's
Date: 26 Jan 93 18:33:04 GMT
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo

kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu writes:
>   Is there an ftp site where all the t.o FAQ's are available?

I've never seen one mentioned before.  FAQ's that are cross posted to the
group news.answers are automatically archived at pit-manager.mit.edu (aka
rtfm.mit.edu).  I checked that site out but it didn't have anything for t.o.

I think it would be a good idea toarchive all the FAQ's this way.  An
introduction post and a guidelines post are availible in news.answers or
from rtfm in the directory /pub/usenet/news.answers/news-answers/

(btw, I'm working on a 2nd Law of Thermo FAQ for this group.  I should have
a polished draft done soon for review.)

>Karl



|======================================================================|
| Seth Kroger                       "If God made us in His image we    |
| skroger@oboe.calpoly.edu              have certianly returned the    |
| Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo             compliment."  -Voltaire        |
From: skroger@zeus.calpoly.edu (Seth L. Kroger)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Moon Dust
Date: 25 Jan 93 18:45:24 GMT
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo

rlg@omni (Randy garrett) writes:
>One piece of evidence advanced for a young universe concerns
>the depth of dust on the moon.  In my younger years, I remember
>quite a bit of concern about the depth likely to be encountered
>on the moon.  Many people expected 20 - 40 feet of the stuff
>based on calculated accumulations.  Fortunately for Neil 
>Armstrong, there turned out to be much less -- of order
>a few inches.  Anyone know what the accepted reconcilation
>of the discrepancy is?

The large layer of moondust was calculated from a pre-space age guess of how
much meteoric dust accumutales, and used the very upper end of the scale for
that calculation.  When sattelites were sent up to measure the rate, it was
found to be much lower.

How creationists missed the more recent and accurate measurement is beyond
me.


|======================================================================|
| Seth Kroger                       "If God made us in His image we    |
| skroger@oboe.calpoly.edu              have certianly returned the    |
| Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo             compliment."  -Voltaire        |
From: Dr.Pepper@f241.n103.z1.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Muscle tissue from mouse to sauropod
X-Sender: newtout 0.06 Jan  3 1993
Date: 25 Jan 93  13:16:00

 > From: amorgan@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Crunchy Frog)
 > Message-ID: <1993Jan23.075907.11829@csd-newshost.stanford.edu>

 > In article <243@fedfil.UUCP> news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:

 >>If Kaz couldn't stand in our gravity at 70,000 lbs, then neither could a
 >>sauropod dinosaur.

 > If Kaz can't high jump 8 feet than neither can anything else
 > (except maybe a Cuban).  If Kaz can't long jump over 29 feet then
 > neither can anything else (sorry Powell).  If Kaz can't run 100m in
 > 9.86 seconds and do a flying 100 in 8.8 then neither can anything
 > else (bummer Carl).

If Kaz can't write a 300 line Pascal program, than neither can i.

If Kaz can't tie Ted into a square knot then neither can Chris, or James, or
Brett, or Bill, or...

If Kaz can't show the intellectual honesty of a wet mop, then neither can Ted. 
Hmmm.

Wait, i've got it. The KAZ STANDARD (tm) is the missing constant in the
creationist definition of "Kind"! Check it out:

If Kaz can't evolve into a Boeing 747, then neither can a fruit fly.

Yah Hoo! I've broken free of satanic uniformitarianism. Now i can collect my
degree from ICR!


+--------------------------+--------------------------------------+
| 10                    2  | Garden Grove Institute of Technology |
|        DR PEPPER         | Community Outreach Center            |
|                       4  |                                      |
+--------------------------+ Snail Addr: Unit #1, 7872 Trask      |
| Real americans don't     |             Westminster, Ca  92683   |
| pledge allegiance, they  | Modem:      714-894-7039             |
| make the government earn | Fidonet:    1:103/241                |
| it.                      | Candynet:   42:1001/1                |
|                          | Internet:   Dr.Pepper@f241.n103.z1   |
|                          |              .fidonet.org            |
+--------------------------+--------------------------------------+

---
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: Supernaturalistic Science
Organization: LLNL
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 21:41:37 GMT

In article <162510d23@ofa123.fidonet.org> Dr.Pepper@f241.n103.z1.fidonet.org writes:
: From: russpj@microsoft.com (Russ Paul-Jones)

: the most.  For example, I am not aware of an effort to establish
: that both the strong nuclear force and gravity are personal
: expressions of God's will.
>
>I have. In a creationist pamplet i read a long time ago there was a quote from 
>the Bible that says that God "...holds all things together". This was
>proferred as the final answer to the investigations of nuclear physics.

	That would _have_ to be Jack Chick's pamphlet _That? Big Daddy?_

	Does anyone else around here find Jack Chick's pamphlets very
entertaining?
-- 
/Loren Petrich, the Master Blaster
/lip@s1.gov
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: lindsay+@cs.cmu.edu (Donald Lindsay)
Subject: Re: Duane T. Gish, Ph. D.
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 22:42:25 GMT


trott@remus.rutgers.edu (Rich Trott) writes:

>CLAIM #1:  "According to evolutionists it would have taken 100
>million years for a fish to have evolved from an invertebrate.  But
>there is absolutely no fossil evidence showing that this took place."

I don't know the state of our evidence on the specific point. However,
I do know that some marine environments make fossilization highly
unlikely. (Not handwaving, but, I am told, measurable fact.)

In fact, fossilization is a rare event in most environments:

[Concerning pre-Eocene mammals in Europe] "There is little evidence
to go on.  All that is known from the late Cretaceous - a period
between 100 million and 65 million years ago - can be traced to a
single molar from southern France and a few tooth fragments from
Portugal. The record is utterly blank for the early Paleocene..."
	-- Scientific American (Feb92 p.66)

On an entire continent, that's two teeth in somewhere on the order of
40 million years. If you care to read the article, it talks about a
rare geological mousetrap that occured in Germany 50 million years
ago. On the evidence, these traps are unlikely. So, we know a
relatively huge amount about what was alive at that time, and we know
(relatively) zip from huge tracts of time before and after.
-- 
Don		D.C.Lindsay	Carnegie Mellon Computer Science
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: The Uranus Myth
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 22:55:57 GMT

In article <1993Jan27.082018.15201@smds.com>, rh@smds.com (Richard Harter)
writes:
> In article <1993Jan24.140811@IASTATE.EDU> kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren
Vonroeschlaub) writes:
>> Nonsense.  Don't you remember my earlier post.  The ancient greeks had a god
>>named Uranus.  This could only be if they somehow knew that it existed before
>>the official discovery date.  Obviously history shows that the Earth was
>>orbiting Uranus, and when historical fact and science disagree . . .
> 
>Ha, and likewise double Ha!  By this reasoning, since the ancient greeks had
>a god (goddess?) named Andromeda, we must all be descended from aliens from
>the Andromeda galaxy.  Hmmm, come to think on it maybe you have something
>there at that.

  Exactly.  And futhermore, because of the god Zeus we can postulate that there
must be a tenth planet named Zeus that has yet to be discovered!  And this is a
testable prediction!

> You ignore a fundamental principle of talk.origins science.  If it isn't
> in the text books *right now* it isn't science.

  It would be in the textbooks if the establishment scientists didn't supress
it.  And they must be suppressing it because it isn't in the textbooks.

>>  Er, wouldn't the compressed helium in the core form a superconductor with
>>enough pressure?
> 
>Yep, cold helium would.  Doesn't have to be compressed either.  Now about
>that heat...

  Ah, but the higher the pressure, the warmer the helium can be and still
superconduct.
 
>>  Who said the north magnetic pole lined up with the rotational axis then?
> 
> Point taken.  As usual Ted, er, ah, I mean Warren has one or two small
> legitimate points mixed in.

  This entire post is legitimate, but you just haven't realized that yet.
 
>>> Please cite references.
> 
>>Hmmm.  Well there is the piece of scratch papel I wrote on that is sitting on
>>my desk.  I'll fax you a copy.
> 
>Note folks a first!  Real live documentation.  Warren is beating me down;
>help folks, before this notorious crackpot converts me....

  Ha, I discovered yet another reference.  There is a piece of scratch paper on
my officemates desk that says the same thing.  This is confirming evidence if
ever I've heard of it.

>>>It's good to have you with us Warren.  Now please state the theory
>>>of creationism.
> 
>>  One way to redress the balance would be presentation of evidence _for_
>>creation. I am hoping to address this area in due course.
> 
>I have every expectation that you will do for the evidence for creation
>what you have done for the theory of creation.

  Don't be silly.  Creationism is considerably more rediculous . . .

--
Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub
HTE
From: bvickers@valentine.ics.uci.edu (Brett J. Vickers)
Subject: Re: Ideology and Indoctrination
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Reply-To: bvickers@ics.uci.edu (Brett J. Vickers)
Organization: Univ. of Calif., Irvine, Info. & Computer Sci. Dept.
Date: 25 Jan 93 19:03:39 GMT

Oh boy, at one time I thought Phillip Johnson was making reasonable
(although misleading) arguments, but now I think he has really gone
over the edge.  Conspiracy theories, fear of indoctrination,
watch-out-for-the-bogeymen-of-science theories: these things are the
last refuge of a desperate mind.

philjohn@garnet.berkeley.edu (Phillip Johnson) writes:
>As Richard Dawkins puts it, a single cell has more genetic information
>than all the volumes of an encyclopedia.  If you don't understand that
>explaining the origin of all that information presents a serious
>problem, it is probably because indoctrination in the notion that
>population fluctuation in the peppered moth is the paradigm example of
>evolution in action has a tendency to cloud the mind.

You cite Dawkins but give no indication that you have bothered to read
(or to comprehend) what he wrote.  Dawkins clearly explains that
natural selection is a creative force; it is not blind chance like you
and all other creationists insist ad nauseum.  The complexity that
appears in a single cell alone is explained through cumulative
selection, not single-step selection as you imply.

The peppered moth example is an example of natural selection in a
single step which explains why it is so unsatisfying to you or your
colleagues.  Frankly it is just as unsatisfying to me, because it is
so minor.  No new species evolves in a single step like this (and in
such a blindingly short period of time, biologically speaking).  But
it is illustrative of the way in which genetic changes can accumulate
to form more informationally complex entities.

Please stop arguing from Personal Incredulity, and start presenting
scientific reasons and evidence to deny the established.

>I recognize that this frank talk will cause offense.  My purpose
>is not to insult anyone, however, but to free minds.  Many of you
>have been indoctrinated not to question assumptions that are
>based on ideology rather than evidence.  You can be free of that
>indoctrination if you wish to be.

You are not going to "free" anyone's mind until you come up with
a decent argument based on rational evidence.  Your respectability
just went way down in my book.
--
Brett J. Vickers
bvickers@ics.uci.edu
Newsgroups: talk.origins