HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: swf@tools3teradata.com (Stan Friesen)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Who does Phillip Johnson think the creationists are?
Date: 29 Jan 93 00:12:35 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <1k20u5INN7uf@fido.asd.sgi.com>, livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
|> Then I certainly hope you are consistent.   I hope that you have an equal
|> willingness to believe that nuclear powerstations don't really work, and it's
|> just God making the little atoms go bangity-bangity.

Actually, as a matter of fact, I do believe that.
Oops, I am not Ray, and I do not believe in Creationism.  Oh well.

-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
From: chris@eso.mc.xerox.com (Chris Heiny)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Duane T. Gish, Ph. D.
Date: 25 Jan 93 21:32:22 GMT
Reply-To: chris@eso.mc.xerox.com
Organization: Xerox

In article 16938@city.cs, lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun) writes:
>The fossil record for intermediates is sparse or non existent
>per se. There is a good reason for this.

Well, Lionel, I'll bite.  What is this reason?
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: Yet Another Saturn Myth Variant
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 13:47:30 GMT

In article <236@fedfil.UUCP> news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
}I have never spoken of "diminishing the gravitational field of the earth",
}since that would something stranger than I know anything about in the way
}of physics...

Wouldn't take much to exceed this apparent threshold...

Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: Ages in Chaos
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 13:45:21 GMT

In article <241@fedfil.UUCP> news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
}Velikovsky discovered that, given standard chronologies, Egyptian and Isrealite
}history do not match up at all;  

Or, more precisely, they do not appear to match up to him.  However, since history
was not within his field of acknowledged training, a phychological aspect may
become apparent within his comparisons.

In particular, a psychio-ceramic.
From: trott@remus.rutgers.edu (Rich Trott)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Human Origins
Date: 25 Jan 93 22:53:00 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.


Could someone direct me to a book (or FAQ, preferably with lots of
references) where I could double check the accuracy or lack thereof of
statements such as this:

"Some consider Ramapithecus to have been a hominid, and this judgment
has been made solely on the basis of a few teeth and a few fragments
of the jaw.  That's all the fossil fragments they have."

I naturally suspect that such statements are WAY OUTDATED, but I'd
like some sources to back me up, and I've got a bunch of these
statements to check up on.  (The statements are regarding
Ramapithecus, Australopithecines, Peking Man, Java Man, Neanderthal
Man, Cro-Magnon Man, and the hoaxes of Nebraska Man and Piltdown Man.)

I figured I would just post asking for a source of some kind, but if
someone wants to entertain these claims via e-mail, I'll be happy to
send 'em.  (Hey!  Saves me work!)

For Jim Meritt:  I've been trying to send you mail to thank you for
all the information you sent me, but it keeps bouncing back at me!


  
-- 
Rich Trott
trott@remus.rutgers.edu
From: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: super-secret message to David Rice
Date: 26 Jan 93 22:43:32 GMT
Organization: animal -- coelomate -- deuterostome

HEY YOU, IF YOU AREN'T DAVE STOP READING 'CAUSE THIS IS REALLY, 
REALLY TOP-SECRET STUFF!! 

In article <392610d4a@ofa123.fidonet.org> David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org writes:

>Who: system@kalki33.lakes.trenton.sc.us (Kalki Dasa)

>KD> "Read his book, Darwin on Trial."

>I'd be pleased as punch to read the book. You may send it to
>me, or Mr. Johnson may send it to me, free and postage paid,
>to: 9500 Jeronimo Road, Irvine, California, 92718.

>Since Mr. Johnson is a Creationist, no matter that he professed
>otherwise (if it quacks like a duck), I won't pay to read his
>occult prattle. I will, however, read it for free and post
>criticisms.

Dave,
Are you alone? Is anyone reading over your shoulder? No?...good.
Lean really close to the screen; I have a secret. I read Mr.
Johnson's book and I got it absolutely for free. That's right,
I didn't pay a dime. I went to this place called, write this
down, but if someone catches you -- eat it -- I went to this
place called: A LIBRARY!!!

Quick, hit 'n' before anyone else sees.

>--- Squish v1.01

8-) 8-) 8-) 8-)8-) 8-) 8-) 8-)8-) 8-) 8-) 8-)8-) 8-) 8-) 8-)8-) 8-) 8-)

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"
From: John.Brawley@f9.n8012.z86.toadnet.org (John Brawley)
Sender: fredgate@cheswicks.toadnet.org
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: Muscle tissue from mouse to sauropod
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 19:24:54 GMT

In article <246@fedfil.UUCP>, news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
>You've missed the entire point.  The point is, that Kazmaier is so much
stronger
>than any kind of animal his own weight,

  Ted, we discussed this not 5 months ago, remeber?  Don't you remember the
statistics posted on apes and monkeys?  How they are much stronger than Kaz?

  I don't remember you even attempting to refute these (except, of course, a
flat out denial before the scientific data was posted) so I assume you agreed
with them.

  Let's face it, humans are not all that strong in general.

[rest of post deleted]

 |  __L__
-|-  ___  Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub
 |  | o | kv07@iastate.edu
 |/ `---' Iowa State University
/|   ___  Math Department
 |  |___| 400 Carver Hall
 |  |___| Ames, IA  50011
 J  _____
From: swf@tools3teradata.com (Stan Friesen)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
Date: 28 Jan 93 00:33:07 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <C1DyzH.1J0.1@cs.cmu.edu>, drake+@cs.cmu.edu (Drake) writes:
|> rowe@pender.ee.upenn.edu (Mickey Rowe) writes:
|> 
|> >According to the standard definition of species (which you used in a
|> >section I deleted below), speciation has been observed in the wild.
|> 
|> References please?
|> 
How many do you want?  Speciation by allopolyploidy is so common it is almost
silly.   Read any good text on plant genetics - it should list several cases,
complete with references to the primary literature.  [In fact in some groups
it is so prevalent that botanists have not even bothered to name the various
species - for instance Kentucky Blue Grass is actually a multi-species complex,
but only one of them is named - Poa pratensis].

If you are really too lazy to go to the local university to check this out,
I can try to dig up something from my old college text books at home.

-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: cotera@woods.ulowell.edu
Subject: Re: Who does Phillip Johnson think the creationists are?
Organization: University of Lowell
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 16:56:05 GMT

In article <2B6444A7.1594@ics.uci.edu>, bvickers@valentine.ics.uci.edu (Brett J. Vickers) writes:
 
> This requires almost no response since Ray himself admits that it
> is not a scientific claim to say that "God exists."  The fact
> that he even included it at all suggests to me that he felt his
> list was too short and had to add at least one more claim so
> as not to appear ignorant.  Backfire.

As I said, his existence is crucial to the interpretation of the facts.  If His
existence was disproved then Creationism would be falsified.

> 
>>    2. Non-constant speed of light (although I for one don't beleive this is
>>	central to Creationism).
> 
> This is the one scientific claim made (or repeated) by Ray Cote that
> can be answered.  It is falsified.  See the next article.

I haven't seen the next article yet but I'll make some preliminary remarks.
    1. The evidence supports the claim that the speed of light in a vacuum is
a constant (it is not the same constant in dielectric media).  However this
does not constitute falsification.  
    2. There's at least one non-Creationist theory that says that the speed of
light is not constant.  I think the theory has to do with the Grand Unified
Theory.
   
> 
>>    3. Non-constant decay rates (I'll try to get a list of secular sources
>>	that actually show that the decay constants of radioactive substances
>>	can change).
> 
> Unsubstantiated, therefore there is nothing to answer.
> 

The information comes from a FAQ on alt.physics.new-theories.  That FAQ hasn't
been posted recently, so I'm asking that it be posted.
--Ray Cote
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: Who is Christian - a simple answer
Organization: LLNL
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 01:04:14 GMT

In article <1jpnkmINN272@dmsoproto.ida.org> rlg@omni (Randy garrett) writes:
>It seems to me that C.S. Lewis's Lord, Liar,
>or Lunatic argument holds a lot of logical validity:  

	[about Jesus Christ]

	What's the relevance to talk.origins?

	And why don't you argue this question with a real expert on
divinity, our favorite Veda-thumper Kalki Dasa?

-- 
/Loren Petrich, the Master Blaster
/lip@s1.gov
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: tycchow@riesz.mit.edu (Timothy Y. Chow)
Subject: Re: Yet Another Saturn Myth Variant
Organization: None.  This saves me from writing a disclaimer.
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 93 02:02:27 GMT

In article <C17xIv.1yJ@athena.cs.uga.edu> keck@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul) writes:
<Unfortunately, Ted has never played with an electromagnet.  Say one is hanging
<from your ceiling, and you stick a hunk of metal to it.  Pull the metal away
<about an inch, let it go, and it will jump right back up, defeating gravity.
<This might even work at a foot away.  But, get it a couple of feet away, and
<it will fall.  Why?  Gravity is much stronger than any known force _at a
<distance_!  For Ted's explanation to work, there would have to be an 
<incredibly large "electro-magnetic" force at work, more powerful than any
<now-known force.

Gravity and electrostatic attraction both obey a 1/r^2 law, so to say that
"Gravity is much stronger than any known force _at a distance_" is
outrageously misleading, if not downright false.  What you really want to
talk about is susceptibility/mass or charge/mass ratios of typical objects,
because this is what decides whether gravitational or electromagnetic
effects will dominate.

The reason gravity dominates in astronomy is not because electromagnetic
forces are "weaker" than gravity at large distances, but because most
astronomical bodies have very little charge or magenetization compared to
their mass.
-- 
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
From: watson@sce.carleton.ca (Stephen Watson)
Subject: Re: News update: Creation/Evolution controversy
Organization: Carleton University
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 18:55:31 GMT

bvickers@valentine.ics.uci.edu (Brett J. Vickers) writes:

>From LA Times 1/21/93:

>BIBLES AND THE BOARD -- A SKIRMISH BREWING
>By Micahel Granberry
>autobiography, "I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings" and the Harper Lee
>novel "To Kill a Mockingbird" have been removed from school shelves
>because of sexually explicit scenes.

_Mockingbird_ has "sexually explicit" scenes?  Gee, I missed that -
and I was at the age where I most certainly would have noticed too! ;-)
--
| Steve Watson a.k.a. watson@sce.carleton.ca === Carleton University, Ontario |
|  this->opinion = My.opinion;  assert (this->opinion != CarletonU.opinion);  |
"Somebody touched me / Making everything new / Burned through my life / Like a
 bolt from the blue / Somebody touched me / I know it was you" - Bruce Cockburn
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: For-sale ads on sci.math??
From: kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu
Date: 23 Jan 93 06:41:22 EST
Organization: Wesleyan University

In article <8RJqXB7w165w@kalki33.lakes.trenton.sc.us>, system@kalki33.lakes.trenton.sc.us (Kalki Dasa) writes:

   Return of the Kalkii...

> weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:
> 
>> In article <ZN3kXB1w165w@kalki33.lakes.trenton.sc.us>, system@kalki33 (Kalki 
>> >The recent upsurge of "I have a book for sale" messages on sci.math is
>> >very annoying. Usenet etiquette is that these ads are inappropriate. I
>> >request the posters of such ads to stop.  [signature omitted]

   Is this the same Kalki Dasa who was urging everyone on talk.origins
to spend $10 on Richard Thompson's book when no one could find it in
any library or bookstore?  Or is it perhaps another one?  Or even the
nefarious tapeworm?!

>> The upsurge of religious propaganda on USENET via your signature is also
>> very annoying, and USENET etiquette discourages all big signatures. 
> 
> You know, Weiner, you haven't got any idea how fortunate you are.

   Now do you see what an ignorant slob you have been all your life, Matthew?

> Reading my signature is the only good thing that ever happened to you in
> your entire miserable life, and you should get down on your knees and
> thank the God who made you for giving you this opportunity to at least
> see His holy name in print.

   As well should you, Kalki, revel in the holy words printed in my 
own sig, especially the quote from Duke, which will bring you eternal
happiness and warm fuzzies.

Love and kisses,

Karl

 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| "Lastly, I come to China in the hope      | "All you touch and all you see  |
| of fulfilling a lifelong ambition -       | Is all your life will ever be." |
| dropping acid on the Great Wall."  --Duke |                 --Pink Floyd    |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|         A Lie is still a Lie even if 3.8 billion people believe it.         |
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Ideology and Indoctrination
Date: 25 Jan 93 23:46:29 GMT
Organization: sgi
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <1k0tpu$5mp@agate.berkeley.edu>, philjohn@garnet.berkeley.edu (Phillip Johnson) writes:
|> Chris Colby complains that Darwin on Trial reports that
|> biologists have been hiding things from the public.   Why not,
|> when leading figures have admitted as much on behalf of their
|> profession?  It is not I but Stephen Jay Gould who described the
|> prevalence of stasis and sudden appearance in the fossil record
|> as the "trade secret" of paleontology.  

I think you are contradicting yourself here in a fairly obvious
way.   If you can quote Gould on the subject, then it is *not*
the case that things are being hidden.   Gould's books are in
all the bookstores I visit.

As a matter of fact, IMHO Gould is right, and not nearly enough
attention was paid to evidence of stasis.   On the other hand,
as Gould's colleague Eldredge has pointed out, it's sometimes
possible to follow the gradual evolution of a species - the 
example was trilobite eyes, I think - for millions of years, so
it was probably very tempting to assume that this was very
common.   In other words, Gould's criticism, IMHO, is right on,
but that does not mean that there's some conspiracy afoot.  It
means that Gould has a better grasp on the significance of the
evidence contrary to gradual change than others may have had.

If we ever *stop* hearing scientists accusing one another of not
paying enough attemtion to the evidence, then will be the time
to worry.

Along the same lines, Gould points out in Wonderful Life how
the original workers on the Burgess Shale fossils worked entirely
too hard to fit them into known lineages.    Do you want to 
declare a grand conspiracy and attempt to hide the truth in that
case as well?

jon.
From: skroger@zeus.calpoly.edu (Seth L. Kroger)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Muscle tissue from mouse to sauropod
Date: 25 Jan 93 18:12:29 GMT
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo

prl@csis.dit.csiro.au (Peter Lamb) writes:
>news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
>Another entertaining possibility is that Ted's reduced felt effect of
>gravity may not have helped flying animals all that much. Assuming a
>constant mass, composition and depth of atmosphere, atmospheric
>pressure would be halved by halved gravity. This would lead to a halved
>atmospheric density (mass/vol), and so reduced lift at a constant
>flight velocity.

True, in fact the lift would be halved as well, all else remaining equal.
The equation for lift is L = C_L * density * 1/2 V^2 * Area, where C_L is
the coefficient of lift, and Area is the area of the wing.  It is possible
to double C_L by flying at a different attitude (or what we aero's call
angle of attack) but you would also increase the coefficient of drag by a
factor of 4.  (C_D prop. to C_L^2)  That would require more power to fly at
the same speed with reduced gravity.

>Anyone have aerodynamic equations for sinking rate which include
>atmospheric density?

What kind of sinking rate, a vertical fall or glide?

>Note that all animals would have to survive in a halved oxygen partial
>pressure, too. Maybe that's why the dinosaurs were so dumb :-) See Huxley, A,
>"Brave New World" for how this might be applied to humans :-( .

>Peter Lamb (prl@csis.dit.csiro.au)


|======================================================================|
| 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        |
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: News update: Creation/Evolution controversy
From: lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Date: 23 Jan 1993 11:26 MST  
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <2B5F02C8.796@ics.uci.edu>, bvickers@valentine.ics.uci.edu (Brett J. Vickers) writes...
>   At the request of a marine biologist concerned about the new members'
>ideology, the board will air its views on creationism -- but only as
>a discussion item.  [I wonder if this marine biologist is Steve
>Linke, a past participant in t.o who works at Scripps in San Diego. -bv.]

No, Steve is a molecular biologist at the Salk Institute.

Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
From: throopw@sheol.UUCP (Wayne Throop)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Yet Another Saturn Myth Variant
Summary: this variant doesn't work much better than the others Ted has proposed
Date: 21 Jan 93 04:52:22 GMT

: From: news@fedfil.UUCP (news)
: Message-ID: <222@fedfil.UUCP>
: Aside from every other version of the Saturnian configuration which I've
: seen in print, there is one which I've wondered about and which it turns
: out that Ginenthal himself espouses;  I was sort of taken aback by this.
: In a way, it makes a bit more sense than any of the others.
: This would involve Earth and possibly one or two other small planets
: being suspended BETWEEN Jupiter and Saturn, possible at or near some point
: of equal attraction, which you might call a "baricenter" or some such.

You *might* call it one of the LaGrange points (I think it's L1, but I'm
not sure).  It is dynamically unstable (only L4 and L5 are stable, and
I'm not sure Jupiter/Saturn would form L4 and L5 points).  Maybe
Ginenthal "himself" should re-hire Strabismus for some simple
calculations on orbital dynamics.  The situation would blow up in days
or weeks, and could not possibly remain stable throughout a "golden
age", let alone two, as Ted requires here:

: This would have the benefit of allowing the switch from the "age of Kronos"
: to the age of Zeus via a simple flip of the earth on its pole.

Ha!! "simple flip" he says.  Very amusing, Ted.

But note, only tides and not direct gravitation of the bodies involved
would apply to the "felt effect" reduction Ted wants, which means that
the two tug-of-war contending planets would have to be too close to
earth to give the visual effects Talbott and Holden claim for them (in
particular, according to a quick botec I just did, they'd have to be
within the rings of Saturn). 

:: From: twalters@world.std.com (Tim Walters)
:: Message-ID: <C13oKn.Az3@world.std.com>
:: Gee, Ted, what would happen to the felt effect of gravity if the earth
:: were suspended at a point of equal attraction like that? Wouldn't it
:: be 1g?

Well, no, this doesn't happen to be one of the things wrong with this
scenario.  Tides don't cancel out (though, as you point out and I allude
to above, direct gravitation WOULD cancel out). 

So ANYway, this doesn't work any better than Ted's traditional scenario,
and in some ways is worse.  (And they both require some magic force to
stabilize an inherrently unstable configuration, and place more stress
on the planet than it can take.)
--
Wayne Throop  ...!mcnc!dg-rtp!sheol!throopw
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: russpj@microsoft.com (Russ Paul-Jones)
Subject: Supernaturalistic Science (Was Re: Who does Phillip Johnson think the creationists are?)
Date: 27 Jan 93 00:17:39 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation
Summary: Asking some followup questions

In article <1993Jan25.130636.1@woods.ulowell.edu> cotera@woods.ulowell.edu writes:
>Creationism relies on the assumption that God exists and was insrumental in the
>origin of the universe and everything in it.  Evolution, on the other hand,
>relies on the assumption that He doesn't exist, or if He does, He doesn't
>interfere with the natural processes of the universe.  Neither of these
>assumptions have been proved to be valid.  Yet the assumption made is crucial
>to the interpretation of the data.  No one has disproved God's existence, so I
>see no reason to prefer one view over the other (from a scientific viewpoint
>that is).
> ...
>Naturalistic explanations are all well and good if there is no God.  I have yet
>to see His existence disproven.  Thus naturalistic explanations are, for the
>time being, inadequate.

You seem to be a proponent of supernaturalistic science.  I've put 
together a somewhat detailed description of what I think you mean 
by that, which I posted to the net last week.  I am very interested 
in refining this description, as I'm actually confused over some of 
the central questions of the philosophy of supernaturalistic science:

1.	Is it necessary for God to have created the universe? In 
	other words, would the assumption of a non-creative God 
	be just as suitable for sn science?

2.	When do we accept naturalistic scientific explanations and 
	when do we need supernaturalistic scientific explanations?
	For example, most folks nowadays seem to be satisfied with 
	naturalistic explanations for the sun's rising each 
	morning.  Why?

Can you help me out here?  In order to save bandwidth, I've merely 
mailed my description to you.

>--Ray Cote 
>

-Russ Paul-Jones
russpj@microsoft.com