HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Creationists: EXPLAIN THIS -- the Brazil Nut Effect
Date: 21 Aug 92 17:34:05 GMT
Organization: City University, London

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?

--
Lionel Tun   (lionel@cs.city.ac.uk)
Vision Group, City University, London, EC1V 0HB. 071-477 8000 x 3889
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: 360 day year
Date: 12 Aug 92 14:04:39 GMT
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA

In article <1992Aug12.130603.19438@engage.pko.dec.com> ed_eck@milkwy.enet.dec.com  writes:
}Ted may be right about the 360-day Mayan year. 
}Summary:
}
}The Mayans used a number of calendars. The calendar used to date historical
}events was a 360 day calendar, as Holden and Dr. V. claimed.
}
}Comments?

The problem being that he is not acting as though the 360-day-year was a
political/religious decision with selective use, but a function of the actual
orbit around the sun.  And that doesn't happen to be a function of political
motives nor religious decrees.
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: Holden Numbering
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 18:24:42 GMT

In article <2867@fedfil.UUCP>, news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
> In article <1992Aug18.053325.17277@smds.com>, rh@smds.com (Richard Harter)
writes:
[the usual snide personal attacks by Holden deleted]
> > If you want to look at how big an animal can be there are really two
> > numbers that are meaningful -- the compression loading per unit area
> > of the supporting limbs and the shear stress when the limbs are out of
> > vertical alignment [for animals supported by their limbs].  
> 
> Wonderful.  These are two numbers which tell you a little bit about a 
> creatures ability to bear weight once he's already got the weight up,
> i.e. (here), once he's managed to stand in the first place.  You've
> totally neglected the little problem of standing up in the first place.

  And you've totally neglected the fact that there may be no need to stand up. 
Can you give any evidence (snicker) that the seismosaur ever actually sat down? 
Horses sleep on their feet, why not seismosaurs?

> Minor detail...

 |  __L__   *******************************
-|-  ___    * Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub   *
 |  | o |   * kv07@iastate.edu            *
 |/ `---'   * Iowa State University       *
/|   ___    * Math Department             *
 |  |___|   * 400 Carver Hall             *
 |  |___|   * Ames, IA  50011             *
 J  _____   *******************************
From: bertsche@llnl.gov (Kirk Bertsche)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Gish v. Ross on Focus on the Family
Date: 14 Aug 92 19:29:40 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

Thanks, Bill, for telling us about these programs!  I missed it yesterday, 
but managed to hear today's show.

In article <88513@rphroy.ph.gmr.com> hamilton@gmr.com (William E. Hamilton 
CS50 CS/50) writes:
> The paradigm that a naturalistic explanation excludes God seems 
> to be very firmly fixed in his mind.

Yes, I have been convinced for a number of years that this is one of the 
fundamental reasons why young-earth creationists reject much of modern 
science.  The ICR guys do not seem to have a very well-developed 
understanding of the biblical doctrine of God's providence.  Though they 
would denounce deism as a heresy, they lean strongly toward it in their 
own thinking.  This came out even more clearly in Gish's comments today 
than I've heard it before.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Kirk Bertsche    (bertsche@llnl.gov)    (510) 422-8139
Center for Accelerator Mass Spectrometry
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
P.O. Box 808, L-397, Livermore, CA 94551






Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Subject: Re: JW's claim of a "Water Canopy"
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 21:24:36 GMT

kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:
>  I am particularly impressed by the number of mistakes squeezed into 4
>sentences.  Let us count them, no?
>...
>  I am sure I missed some, anybody have anything to add?

Being under the athmosphere and enough water to cover the highest peak
on Earth is equivalent to being under that much water and then the
athmosphere.  In other words, the same pressure as if you were at the
bottom of a 13000 ft trench of water, i.e., you can't breathe.  It
doesn't have to be anywhere near that deep for this to occur, either.
-- 
Back off, man - I'm an engineer
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Evolution is false
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 18:39:36 GMT

Well, I thought that would get your attention.

  The point I am trying to make is that creationists (especially the ICR) seem
to spend a great deal of time trying to disprove evolution and little (if any)
time proving creationism.

  It has peaked my intrest where exactly the creationists plan to go once the
prove "evolution is false".  The request I have is simple:

Step A> Evolution is false
Step B>
  .
  .
  .
Step Z> Therefore creationism is true.

  All you have to do is fill in Steps B through Y, you can even add more steps
if you feel they are needed.  You are allowed to use the hypothesis that
evolution is false to prove your case, but all other hypothesis are open to
debate.

  Any takers?

 |  __L__   *******************************
-|-  ___    * Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub   *
 |  | O |   * kv07@iastate.edu            *
 |/ `---'   * Iowa State University       *
/|   ___    * Math Department             *
 |  |___|   * 400 Carver Hall             *
 |  |___|   * Ames, IA  50011             *
 J  _____   *******************************
From: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: behavior and evolution
Date: 21 Aug 92 14:31:04 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: julian@fraser.sfu.ca (Julian Shillcock)

In article <julian.714356105@sfu.ca>, julian@fraser (Julian Shillcock) writes:
>>>None that can be reproduced of course, but certainly one subject
>>>to historical verification (the resurrection).

>>I checked with my rabbi.  He said that's a bunch of protostomatic
>>gibberish.  Since my rabbi has deep direct access to the Divine,
>>you'll have to come up with a better example.

>Citing divine revelation to your rabbi to argue against my support of
>divine revelation seems to be "Game, set and match" to me.

Right.  You lose if you claim the resurrection has been historically
verified.  Do you, for example, also believe in Elvis?  I mean, if he'd
have been Catholic, he'd be a Saint by now many times over.

>>>But we accept a lot of events not scientificlly demonstrable in our
>>>live: My girlfriend loves me, if I did not accet this without
>>>reproducible evidence I would be a poor human being,

>>If she stopped speaking warmly with you, spending time with you, doing
>>little things for you, showing that she cares, and so on and so on, but
>>instead ditched all this into complete zero, and you went on saying that
>>you know she really loves you, she's just not showing it anymore, we'd
>>consider you stupid and gullible and being set up for a long hard fall.

>I thought someone would reply thusly... but what if she has to
>go away on ajourney and cannot communicate with me for a long time?

And what if and what if and what if ....

It gets boring quickly.  Spinning out scenarios just to get to the
following point is simply not interesting.

>Science can only show us part of the picture of our lives (and the
>world's).  There is no reason to think that it exhausts the set of
>experiences and/or objects in the universe, to do so is simply an
>arrogant belief that one part of human creativity will describe
>everything.

I think you're talking to the wrong audience.  I have met such people,
but they are not particularly representative among scientists.  This
newsgroup, meanwhile, is focussed on the question of origins and what
is and what can be known about the history of life on earth, and I fail
to see what your vehement agreement with most of the net.scientists has
to do with this focus.  I repeat my advice that you should study some
philosophy of science--you'll discover that logical positivism and its
close variants never did take a strong hold, and that it has been dead
for most of its life--and hence there's no particular need to huff and
puff against it in the first place.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.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: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 20:32:18 GMT

lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun) writes:
>There is one way of looking at the physical universe which is
>that everything including stars, atoms, electrons and binding
>forces is continuously sustained by Jesus in real time.

If that's your faith, that's fine.  It's just not scientific.  This "Jesus
Theory" doesn't seem to have any method you can use to explain stars, atoms,
electrons and binding forces, and how the interact with each other.

>I can't find the biblical reference so maybe someone can help
>out here. Considering that God is a spiritual being, and that
>he created the universe just to accomodate us, I don't see
                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Why would God create an infinite universe just for the sake of one species
living on one tiny little planet?

>why He should not be responsible for making it all hang
>together as it goes along. Just one possible way of looking
>at it btw.
>Lionel Tun   (lionel@cs.city.ac.uk)
>Vision Group, City University, London, EC1V 0HB. 071-477 8000 x 3889


|======================================================================|
| 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        |
QUIT
mpliment."  -Voltaire        |
From: scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu (Scharle)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Proving the existance of a deity (was Re: Mandatory negatives)
Date: 21 Aug 92 12:29:27 GMT
Reply-To: scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu (Scharle)
Organization: Univ. of Notre Dame

In article <1992Aug20.174054.13339@linus.mitre.org>, m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
|> In article <1992Aug20.133449.21750@news.nd.edu> scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu (Scharle) writes:
|> }In article <1992Aug19.184353.776@linus.mitre.org>, m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
|> }    ...
|> }|> How about as particles of differing size are hydrostatically sorted
|> }|> into "bins" of their respective size/weight through hydraulic acton?
|> }|> 
|> }|> Are you so out of tune with reality that you've never looked at the sand on
|> }|> a beach?
|> }    ...
|> }   Sometimes (well, OK, often) I feel so stupid.  I've seen this point
|> }umpteen times, and it never clicked before.
|> }
|> }   The fossils were hydraulicly (or is it "hydrologically" -- could
|> }someone tell me?) sorted in the Flood.  So the creationists tell us.
|> 
|> }God could have performed a miracle to suspend the second
|> }law, and intervened in such a way as to sort them in an order which
|> }would give the impression that there was evolution.  Or maybe, he
|> }just allowed some intelligent malevolent force to intervene.
|> 
|> Right.  And he left this mysterious magic turned on even unto this day, and
|> it is so much of the background that nobody notices.
    I'm not sure what you are getting at here, although rereading my post, I can
understand how I could be misunderstood.

    According to the standard creationist reading of the second law of
thermodynamics, order cannot come about without the intervention of
intelligence.  Therefore, the creationist argument goes, more complex
life could not arise from less.

     According to one standard creationist explanation of the order of
fossils, this came about by hydro-something-or-other sorting, without
the intevention of intelligence.

     These two positions are inconsistent.  Furthermore, the second creationist
argument shows that _everyone_ understands that order can come about
from disorder, just as _everyone_ knows that frost forms on a window, ...
It thus seems a little disingenuous for a creationist to say that there is a
second law of thermodynamics which prevents this from happening.
-- 
Tom Scharle                |cm65n6@irishmvs(Bitnet)
Room G003 Computing Center |scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu(Internet)
University of Notre Dame  Notre Dame, IN 46556-0539 USA
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!
From: sbishop@desire.wright.edu
Date: 17 Aug 92 21:51:06 EST
Organization: Wright State University 

In article <1992Aug17.162241.26511@city.cs>, lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun) writes:
> In article <zs9msg+.alc@netcom.com> stassen@alc.com writes:
> 
>>[..about dating trees by tree rings...]
> 
> 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.
> 

But you are missing one very obvious fact, that there is strong evidence
the tree was put there to deceive you.  Otherwise, why did it appear out 
of the blue with obvious signs of age?  

Ah, what's the use......

Sue

> --
> Lionel Tun   (lionel@cs.city.ac.uk)
> Vision Group, City University, London, EC1V 0HB. 071-477 8000 x 3889
From: hamilton@gmr.com (William E. Hamilton CS50 CS/50)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Gish v. Ross on Focus on the Family
Date: 13 Aug 92 13:20:32 GMT
Organization: GM Research Labs, Warren, MI


On my way to work this morning I happened to catch James Dobson's "Focus on
the Family" program, and he had Duane Gish and Hugh Ross in the studio.
This was the first of a two-part discussion, and I believe the second half will
be aired tomorrow.  I missed the first 10 minutes, but they were debating
the Big Bang, which Hugh Ross accepts and Duane Gish does not. The debate
strayed to the issue of the length of the creation days and Gish quoted
someone named Barr who claimed that no Hebrew scholar anywhere in the 
world believes that the Genesis account means anything but 7 24 hour days
and a global flood. Ross pointed out that Barr made his statement in the
19th century, and that numerous scholars have come to disagree with
that position since. The most memorable statement (IMO) - so memorable
that it washed out much of the rest of the debate from my memory, came from
Gish.  Ross stated pretty emphatically that he did not accept 
evolution and Gish replied that "The big bang cosmology is evolution".

In an attempt to debunk Ross' cosmology, Gish claimed, "I have papers
which state that no one has ever seen a star being formed," to which
Ross replied with citations of papers in recent refereed journals describing
observations of star formation. No response from Gish.

I'm going to try to catch Focus on the Family again tonight and tape it
(this is the Bible belt - I can get it at least three times in any one
day). Failing that I'll order the cassette and post some excerpts.

I intend to write a letter to Jim Dobson thanking him for publishing the
fact that there are legitimate disagreements over issues like evolution
and the age of the universe among Bible believing Christians.

Bill Hamilton
Xref: sparky talk.origins:9857 soc.culture.african.american:8960 alt.rap:4162
From: huston@access.digex.com (Herb Huston)
Subject: Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 21:29:49 GMT

In article <8ck103Dl606a00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> jloucks@uts.amdahl.com (Jim Loucks) writes:
>Marvin Lubenow of the ICR is putting the finishing touches on a
>book regarding human evolution and the fossil (or lack of) evidence
>for such. This should be an interesting book.

Have you read _The Third Chimpanzee: The Evolution and Future of the Human
Animal_ by Jared Diamond yet (I'm on page 122)?  If not, it's ISBN 0-06-
018307-1.

-- Herb Huston


Xref: sparky talk.origins:9822 soc.culture.african.american:8949 alt.rap:4152
From: czl30@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Chris Lee)
Newsgroups: talk.origins,soc.culture.african.american,alt.rap
Subject: Re: White skin-how did it develope?
Date: 21 Aug 92 04:00:32 GMT
Reply-To: czl30@DUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Chris Lee)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

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.
>
>KAMCHATKA CHARLIE          KAMCHAR@ibm.cl.msu.edu

Vitamin D. This is produced naturally in the body by the action of the
sunlight. The darker the skin, the less is produced. Where the sun is
brightest and hottest, the dark skin produces the correct amount. As
you go further north, you need a lighter skin to produce the same
amount.

Chris Lee
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: JW discourage education (was Re: dawkins/_the selfish gene_)
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 21:38:40 GMT

In article <1992Aug18.195929.4206@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>,
amorgan@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Crunchy Frog) writes:
> Just a quick question (I'm bored): How long have these characters
> been around?

  The JWs were founded by Charles Taze Russell in 1876 when he was elected
"pastor" of a small Bible group in Pittsburgh.

  The name was appropriated in 1931.

>  They are the "millions now living never will die",
> right?

  Yep.  They have made numerous predictions for the end of the world, the first
set for 1914.  After the incident in the 70s they have hedged their bets a bit. 
I think they predict a "better than 50% chance" of the world ending within the
next ten years.

 |  __L__   *******************************
-|-  ___    * Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub   *
 |  | O |   * kv07@iastate.edu            *
 |/ `---'   * Iowa State University       *
/|   ___    * Math Department             *
 |  |___|   * 400 Carver Hall             *
 |  |___|   * Ames, IA  50011             *
 J  _____   *******************************
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: matth@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU (Matthew Hannigan)
Subject: Re: ICR Faculty update
Organization: AODC, but I don't speak for them.
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 12:11:43 GMT

In article <5968@pdxgate.UUCP> allenroy@rigel.cs.pdx.edu (callen roy) writes:
>
>=Here is a fairly complete listing ICR faculty and their degrees, taken
>=from the 1987-1988 ICR Graduate School catalog.  I have added, in
>=parentheses, the fields in which they received their degrees, whenever
>=I was able find this information.  You'll note that some very
>=well-known and respected universities are represented.
>
>=Mark Kuehne
>=kuehne@nwu.edu
>
>There have been some names added to the list.  Additional information on
>some of the professors has been noted.   And, Current titles are corrected.
>a *  marks the professors who were once Evolutionists.
>
>C. Allen Roy
[ ... ]
>Snelling, Andrew A..............Adjunct Professor of Geology
>  Ph.D. (Geology) The University of Sydney, 1981

This guy's supervisor did not even realise that Snelling was 
a creationist until after Snelling got is Ph.D.; and was stunned
to find out he was!


-Matt
matt@aodc20.aodc.gov.au
(Away for the next week, in case you mail or followup.)
Organization: Physics, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 12:30:13 -0400 
From: "Arun K. Gupta" <ag3l+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: The Unauthorized Version



Has anybody read: The Unauthorized Version: Truth and Fiction in the Bible,
by Robin Lane Fox ?

Basically, I want people's comments on his scholarship.

-arun gupta
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: joe@athena.mit.edu (Joseph C Wang)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Could someone direct me to the Talk.Origins FAQ's
Date: 22 Aug 92 03:18:40 GMT
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Thank you.
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: The Philosophical problems of Creationism (Was: Try the Bible (Re: Calling Young-earth Creationists)
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 20:31:29 GMT

In article <1992Aug19.080612.8434@dscomsf.desy.de>, hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phill
Hallam-Baker) writes:
> In article <1992Aug18.115506@IASTATE.EDU>, kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren
> Vonroeschlaub) writes:
> |> Us algebraeists have it a little easier: Pi is the ratio of the
> |>circumfrence of the circle to its diameter.  There, now we know it exactly.
> |>I
> |>couldn't write it down exactly, but big deal, I have it defined absolutely
> |>precisely.
> 
>You algebraeists are way down the line. We are talking meta mathematics here.
We
>havent even defined what we mean by number yet. We are discussing the logical
>reasoning systems used by Peano et al.

  Hold on, the argument started over whether Pi was an irrational number to
aliens.  We are assuming that number and irrational are defined.  Furthurmore,
when the answer was given as yes, the person asked if we knew Pi exactly.

  My answer was simply that Pi is a specifiable number, and so we know it
exactly.  Of course, that is kind of the definition of a specifiable number
isn't it?

> |>> For practical purposes this is not a problem since it is the utility of
> |>> a calculus that is important, not whether it is "true" in an absolute
> |>> sense.
> |>
> |>  Ack!
> 
> You seem to think that there is some "absolute" definition of truth? 

  Nope, I was commenting on the wording.  Actually it wasn't that bad
considering the subject at hand.

 |  __L__   *******************************
-|-  ___    * Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub   *
 |  | o |   * kv07@iastate.edu            *
 |/ `---'   * Iowa State University       *
/|   ___    * Math Department             *
 |  |___|   * 400 Carver Hall             *
 |  |___|   * Ames, IA  50011             *
 J  _____   *******************************
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: davis@bedlam.asd.sgi.com (Tom Davis)
Subject: What's in a name (was: The problem with scientific creationism)
Keywords: creationism, deconstructionism
Organization: sgi
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 16:54:58 GMT

I once went to a lecture by Herbert Simon, who basically said to
beware of all disciplines with the word "science" in their name.

"Real" sciences don't require it:  Physics, Geology, Chemistry,
Biology.  Watch out for:  Social Science, Political Science,
Creation Science, and particularly, Computer Science.

The paragraph above is not verbatim, but it's darned close.
Newsgroups: talk.origins