HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: My conversion
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 23:06:22 GMT

In article <1992Dec11.084425.1@woods.ulowell.edu>, cotera@woods.ulowell.edu
writes:
>And was does the handedness of the universe got to do with anything anyway?
And
>the giraffe's neck doesn't prove a thing.  Trees don't have to evolve you know!
>Besides, didn't the Miller-Urey experiment prove that amino acids can be
formed
>in the wrong atmosphere? And just because we have no way to prove evolution
>occured, doesn't mean it's not a scientific fact! See, we know gravity exists,
>so evolution must also.  Isn't it obvious that man evolved from molecules? 
>And just because the Laws of Thermodynamics prove that the universe had a
>beginning, that's no reason to believe there's a Creator.  Heck, those Laws
>probably weren't valid before the Big Bang.  And we do know that the Big Bang
>happened.  Isn't the universe expanding? Isn't the Earth bathed in blackbody
>radiation?  Explain that you nutty Creationists.

  I wish this was a bit shorter.  It is the perfect summary of nearly every
Tunism contained in forTun.  It is rare that you see so many fallicious parodies
in a single place.

> Merry Nonexistant-son-of-god Day.

  Okay, that does it.  Whether people want it or not, I'm writing a "God and
Evolution" FAQ over break.  I think I can squeeze it in during the ski trip to
Canada for a week (smile).

 |  __L__
-|-  ___  Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub
 |  | o | kv07@iastate.edu
 |/ `---' Iowa State University
/|   ___  Math Department
 |  |___| 400 Carver Hall
 |  |___| Ames, IA  50011
 J  _____
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: MANDTBACKA@FINABO.ABO.FI (Mats Andtbacka)
Subject: Re: FAQ List - HA!
Organization: Unorganized Usenet Postings UnInc.
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 10:14:27 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.24

In <12423@risky.Convergent.COM> bkorb@starbase.Convergent.Com writes:
> In article <1992Dec11.122456.17672@abo.fi>, MANDTBACKA@FINABO.ABO.FI (Mats Andtbacka) writes:

>>       ==> If I don't get any good response this time either, I shall
>> surmise that no such list exists,
> 
> 	Reasonable enough

      So I also thought. However, as we all saw, such a list ended up
posted at least twice - thanks guys! Anybody who missed it, contact me
(ASAP, as I'll be leaving over Xmas shortly) for a copy.

>> and undertake to create one myself.
> 
> 	I'm less sure about this being reasonable.

      How so? You go on to argue, I think at least, that there are too
many opinions on t.o for such a list to be feasible; but I didn't want a
list of opinions. I asked for, and got, a list of FAQs - and there
aren't all that many semi-"official" such around.

      You also say something about possibly attacking such a list if it
would too aggressively attack Xian views - at least so I read your
posting. But a mere list of FAQs presents no opinion of its own at all;
it's just a reference to the lists themselves! If you wish to disagree
with, say, James Meritt, then you're free to do so; but why jump at my
throat just because he's written a few FAQs?

-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-
 If you think I'm gonna be responsible for this crap, you're madder than I am.
    "No logic here today / Do as you got to, Go your own way..." -- G 'n' R
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: Uniformity:  miniscule cause and monstrous effect
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 15:39:42 GMT

In article <170@fedfil.UUCP> news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
}In brief, the doctrine of uniformity is forcing natural scientists into
}a tighter and tighter intellectual corner.  Amongst other problems, they are
}continually forced to ascribe giant effects to piss-ant causes.
}
}Likewise, Hyde and others, you have cause to be angry at whoever had sold
}you this doctrine of uniformity, but not at me.  Like the little kid, I've
}ultimately done you a favor.

Could you please tell us what this "doctrine of uniformity" that you keep
talking about is, and give a few specific examples of who uses it as you
describe?  Off hand, I don't recall anyone that uses, let alone "forces
into tighter and tighter intellectual corners" what you appear to be 
talking about.  You appear to be trying to "sell" something that doesn't,
to the best of my knowledge, exist anywhere except within your own mind.


Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: In case Bales has convinced you of his honesty...
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 13:45:10 GMT

Does anyone believe Bales?  Anyone at all? There is not a chance of changing
his mind, so I see no reason to waste time with that.  What I wish to present
is information to those who may believe him.  If there is no such person, I
see no reason to demonstrate Bales veracity - or lack of it.

email response in the affirmative is welcome.

No negative replies are necessary.


Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: jgacker@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker)
Subject: Apology to Kalki and t.o.
Organization: Goddard Space Flight Center
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 14:31:57 GMT


	A few weeks back, after challenging Kalki to openly debate a
theory of abiogenesis (deep-sea hot springs), Kalki sent me via e-mail
a reasonably worded discussion of why he did not feel the need to
debate the issue.  In my heated anger, I broached the rules of the Net
and commented and posted Kalki's email.  Anger is not an excuse;  despite
the heatedness of the Gore/Quayle debate, they did not take their ties
off and offer to go bare-knuckle toe-to-toe for 12 rounds.

	Therefore, I offer to Kalki and the readers of t.o. an unconditional
apology for posting Kalki's letter, which was meant for private exchange
and not for public perusal.  I was in error, I transgressed the
bounds of propriety and security, and I turned a reasoned debate into a
personal vendetta.  In future exchanges, I will keep my tie on and
abide by the rules.

	Kalki, I am ashamed of myself.  Your reproof has been heard and I
stand corrected.  I am deeply sorry.

	In complete sincerity,

	Jim Acker
	jgacker@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov
From: swf@tools3teradata.com (Stan Friesen)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Evilutionary Biology
Date: 14 Dec 92 20:37:54 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <1992Dec10.121018.1@woods.ulowell.edu>, cotera@woods.ulowell.edu writes:
|> 
|> Oh yeah, as far as these independent lines of evidence I keep hearing about,
|> think about this.  The DNA of man and monkeys are extremely close.  Their
|> morphologies on the other hand are strikingly different.  So much for
|> comparative DNA and comparitive morphology agreeing.

Eh?!?!  The species that had *already*, on morphological grounds, been determined
to be one of humanities closest relatives is found to have the DNA sequence that
is *also* the closest to that of humans, and this is a *failure* of the two
methods to agree?!?!?!

What would you consider *agreement*?!?

|> One other thing before I go, if I'm an Evilutionist, so is Duane Gish because
|> in "Evolution. The Fossils Say No!" he also recognizes that speciation occurs.

Can't you recognize sarcasm??

You completely missed the point!  If speciation occurs, and with it the nearly
inevitable morphological differences between the parent and daughter species,
what *stops* the indefinate accumulation of such changes, and thus keeps things
within a "kind"?

The prior poster was trying, indirectly, to point out that accepting speciation
yet rejecting the rest of evolutionary theory is actually an *inconsistant*
position, since all the rest of evolutionary theory *follows* from speciation.
[At least unless you have some special limiting mechanism, sor which there is
no evidence].

|> As a matter of fact, I don't know any Creationist that denies microevolution. 

Yep, and we think they are equally as silly.

-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: onar@hsr.no (Onar Aam)
Subject: Re: Ragnarok Is Nigh! Be Ware!
Organization: Rogaland University Centre
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 10:21:49 GMT

>Onar Aam (onar@hsr.no) wrote:
>: >Both Kalki(s) and Lionel Tun will be VERY surprised when Odin,
>: >whom is the One True Creator, comes down and collects warriors
>: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>: >to help Him fight Ragnarok, and Kalki(s) and Lionel find out
>: >they BOTH picked the wrong Gods!
>:  
>: 
>: By Thor! How many times must I say that Onar, not Odin, created the universe. He 
>: then retired and let Odin in charge. There is a place in Norway called Onarheim 
>: and it is supposedly the place where Onar retired.
>: 
>: 
>: Onar.
>
>	You mean you could hire him as a consultant on this origins
>thing?  See what his hourly rate is!
>
>	Jim Acker
>	jgacker@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov

Like many other mythical gods (Odin, Elvis and so on) Onar's appearence amongst
us humble deadly has ceased. But I can step in for him and deligate the money
which he would have earned on his service. And believe me when I say that it is
not at all meant as a lucrative business, merely as a divine service to the
needing. You may denote me with "Your Deity" or "O'Onar". :)


Onar.
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Powered flight
From: kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu
Date: 13 Dec 92 18:59:32 EST
Organization: Wesleyan University

In article <1gg3voINNd63@MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU>, bell-peter@yale.edu (Peter Bell) writes:
> 
> (yes, in the teleost fish--there is a fish, I forget the species now, which 
> is capable of using its enlarged pectoral fins in a flapping manner for short
> distances, on the order of 20 feet, as an augment to jumping out of the water.)

   Flying fish can "fly" for farther than that, but I don't think it's
generally regarded as powered flight, more like gliding.

Karl
------
"Find a great ideal, a great purpose, marry it, and raise a family."
					 --Negativland, "U2"
From: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: some facts about some FAQs (was Re: FAQs request)
Date: 10 Dec 92 16:06:13 GMT
Organization: animal -- coelomate -- deuterostome

In article <1992Dec9.130851.12724@abo.fi> MANDTBACKA@FINABO.ABO.FI (Mats Andtbacka) writes:
>In <pmoloney.723837421@unix1.tcd.ie> pmoloney@unix1.tcd.ie writes:

>> Could someone please mail me the FAQ(s) for this group.  I've been
>> reading for about a month now and seen no sign of them.

>      I've been reading for a while longer, and I understand that *my*
>mailbox couldn't possibly swallow that much text at once. I would,
>however, like a list of what's "available", if such a thing exists.

I have two FAQs. One is an introduction to evolutionary biology. You
(or anyone) can get it by emailing me at colby@bu-bio.bu.edu. I 
post it at irregular intervals, also. Below is an outline of this 
file. It is about 15 pages when printed (depending, of course, on
font and point size and what-not.)

I have another file (called "evidence for evolution") that is a
summary of some studies done a few years ago. This is a really big
file, about twice or more the size of the "intro to evolution"
file. If someone posts a request for the FAQ's for the group, I 
usually only mail them the first one for this reason. Again,
email me and I'll be glad to fire this down the phone lines.

If you email, please specify which file(s) you want. Also,
please provide a working address in the body of your message;
sometimes hitting 'r' doesn't let me get mail back to people.

OUTLINE OF EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY FILE
Introduction
	What is evolution?
	What isn't evolution?
	What evolution isn't
Genetic variation
	How is genetic variation described?
	How much genetic variation is there?
Evolution within a lineage -- anagenesis
	Mechanisms that decrease genetic variation
		Natural selection
			Sexual selection
		Genetic drift
	Mechanisms that increase genetic variation
		Mutation
			Directed mutagenesis
		Recombination
		Gene flow
	Overview of anagenesis
Evolution among lineages -- cladogenesis
	Speciation -- increasing biological diversity
		Modes of speciation
		Observed speciations
	Extinction -- decreasing biological diversity
		"Ordinary" extinctions
		Mass extinctions
	The pattern of macroevolution
	Macroevolution
	Punctuated equilibria
Conclusion

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: jdnicoll@prism.ccs.uwo.ca (James Davis Nicoll)
Subject: Re: On God and Science
Organization: University of Western Ontario, London
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 17:01:45 GMT

In article <1gp0riINNi86@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
>In article <Z2XuVB2w165w@kalki33>, kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
>>
>> O'Keefe accepts that life developed on earth entirely through physical
>> processes of the kind envisioned by Darwin. He stresses, however, that
>> many features of the laws of physics have just the right values to allow
>> for life as we know it. He concludes from this that God created the
>> universe for man to live in -- more precisely, God did this at the
>> moment of the Big Bang, when the universe and its physical laws sprang
>> out of nothing.
>
>Or, out of many alternative Universes, we happen to be in the one
>whose physical laws have the right chracteristics for us to be alive.
>
>jon.

	Why  is the  contribution to this thread so lacking  in  commentary
from intelligent replicating  patterns  not possible  under  the present
set  of  physical laws?

							James Nicoll
From: gpalo@digi.lonestar.org (Gerry Palo)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Velikovsky, Einstein, and Cohen
Date: 14 Dec 92 16:38:06 GMT
Organization: DSC Communications Corp, Plano, TX


There is not enough published evidence to determine what Einstein's attitude
was.  It is possible that he thought Velikovsky was truly nuts and was just
humoring his old friend, though it seems odd that he would have spent so
much time reading and annotating the book if he thought it truly to be a
crackpot theory, even from a friend.  Cohen's quote about it being crazy can 
likewise be interpreted both ways.  There is not enough context to decide.  
It is not unimaginable that when Einstein hit on his idea of the constancy 
of the speed of light that he thought "it's crazy" even in the midst of his 
excitement at the new discovery.

If Einstein's thinking was changing or had changed, it seems to have happened
in a very short time just prior to his death, and it is certainly possible
that had he lived even a few months longer he might have come forward and
said something in public.

Velikovsky at one point wanted to publish a memoir of all his correspondence 
with Einstein.  Unfortunately, since his death only a couple of his umpublished
writings have come out.  And since the death of his wife, everything appears
to be in limbo.  Certainly the annotated copy of WinC would be of interest and
might, or might not, throw light on Einstein's attitude.

Meanwhile, there is no published evidence, and there may or man not be any
extant unpublished evidence, to corroborate Velikovsky's claims about Einstein.
On the other hand, though he has been called a crank and a fool, I don't
think Velikovsky's personal integrity was ever impugned or that he was accused
of outright fabrication, and his claims about Einstein's verbal communications
with him should at least be given some benefit of the doubt.

If Einstein really did spend as much time as V says he did, and as the one published
letter implies he did, reading WinC, and talking and corresponding seriously with
Velikovsky about it (the annotated book and unpublished letters would at least 
corroborate that) it suggests that the "crazy" remark was not said in the sense 
that Velikovsky was a hollow earther or some other kind of loon.  It is certainly
possible that he opposed the hypothesis up to or almost up to his death, while at
the same time being open enough to continue considering it.  There is no question
that if Velikovsky was right it would have momentous consequences for Einstein's
life work.  It is not surprising that Einstein did not rush into print with public
pronouncements either way.

But in any case, it seems like a dry well at this point.  Velikovsky supporters
don't have enough evidence to make a case, and his opponents have only a snippet
or two of equivocal evidence and fall back on a rather boring default position,
which is their right but is hardly interesting.

Gerry Palo  (73237.2006@compuserve.com)

P.S. The copies of "Cosmos without Gravitation" are in the mail to those who
requested them.
From: jtisdel@digi.lonestar.org (J. Michael Tisdel)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Speed of Light and Relativity
Date: 14 Dec 92 22:12:51 GMT
Organization: DSC Communications Corp, Plano, TX

In article <1992Dec11.090340.1@woods.ulowell.edu> cotera@woods.ulowell.edu writes:
>While I'm on the subject of physics, there was a thread on t.o. about
>relativity.  Not all Creationists are against GR, at least I'm not.  In fact,
>it makes some things easier to understand.  How could God have no beginning? 
>Because before He created the universe there was no such thing as space-time. 
>And therefore no such thing as time.  Beginning implies passage of time.  No
>time, no beginning.

This sounds like a variation on Hawking's proposal in "A Brief History of
Time".  If there is a place where there is no space-time, then "before"
breaks down.  How can there be a before without time?  

>
>And the equation for time dialation was incorrectly posted as
>     t'=t/(v^2/c^2-1)^.5
>This would imply that the speed of light is the minimum achievable velocity. 
>The correct formulation is this,
>     t'=t/(1-v^2/c^2)^.5
>

Okay, I blew it on the denominator quite a few posts ago.  Flames justified.

-- 
J. Michael Tisdel                   \\\\\\\\\\\\  digi!jtisdel@uunet.uu.net
DSC Communications Corporation       \\\\\\\\\\\\ jtisdel@digi.lonestar.org
1000 Coit Rd, MS 120, Plano Tx 75075  \\\\\\\\\\\\         jmtisdel@aol.com
   "I want to lie ship-wrecked and comatose, drinking fresh mango juice."
From: throopw@sheol.UUCP (Wayne Throop)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Conceit of t.o regulars
Summary: Ted's position is inconsistent
Date: 16 Dec 92 02:52:41 GMT

: From: news@fedfil.UUCP (news) (Ted Holden)
: Message-ID: <175@fedfil.UUCP>
: The second time the person involved attempts to present such
: [..unorthodox..] views, he is, in the view of the t.o regular crew,
: simply lying;

Fair enough, I suppose.  Unfortunately for Ted's position, the example
he chooses is one where he is in error, whether or not he is honest. 
Particularly:

:: a heavily attenuated felt effect of
:: gravity on our earth implies a different solar system order;  it implies
:: that earth-bound creatures felt the gravity of some other cosmic body or
:: bodies in opposition to the gravity of the earth.

This is completely wrong.  An "attenuated felt effect of gravity" in
NO way implies "the gravity of some other body in opposition to the
gravity of the earth".

In fact, Ted himself claims there are alternatives.  When it is
demonstrated that other cosmic bodies' gravitation can't provide the
distribution of effect he wants over the earth's surface, he has said
that maybe the effect was due to "electromag" forces. 

Therefore, the implication is AT BEST that there is another cosmic
body OR some "electromag" forces, even according to Ted.

Remember that gravitation alone CANNOT supply the effects Ted is
attempting to explain with his "attenuated felt effect of gravity". 
So going from "attenuated FEG" to "other cosmic body nearby" is
not an "implication" at all.  It's just faulty reasoning.

: People defending a viable science [...]
: do not normally behave like that [.. accusing others of lying ..].  
: They don't have to.

Yet Ted accuses others (eg, Sagan) of lying and worse, antarctic
researchers of drunkenness, and scientists in general of ignoring truth
in favor of orthodoxy for venal motives.  By Ted's own reasoning, if
Velikovskianism were a viable science, he wouldn't have to do 
these things. 
--
Wayne Throop  ...!mcnc!dg-rtp!sheol!throopw
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Subject: Re: Finnish Bible Translating
Organization: University of Joensuu
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 09:25:50 GMT

livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:

>In article <1992Dec11.121426.16272@abo.fi>, MANDTBACKA@FINABO.ABO.FI (Mats Andtbacka) writes:
>>
>>     Sill{ n{in sanoo Herra: Vasta kun ne seitsem{nkymment{
>>    Baabelin vuotta ovat t{yttyneet, min{ katson teid{n puoleenne
>>    ja panen t{yt{nt||n teit{ kohtaan hyv{n lupaukseni ja
>>    palautan teid{t t{h{n paikkaan.

>Do Finnish sermons end with the closing of all the parenthesese,
>like German ones end with all the verbs?

	It's only scandinavic fonts.

-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint

	No ITU, love, evolution.           Tuusniemi ! Siis imein suut !
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: jgacker@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker)
Subject: Re: Response to Michael Simon, part 3
Organization: Goddard Space Flight Center
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 14:42:21 GMT


	Bob, check that least reference.  I believe it should be
Gunter Faure (editor of _Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta_).  Just
looks suspicious.

	Jim Acker
	jgacker@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov


Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: sdoe@nmsu.edu (Stephen Doe)
Subject: Re: Kalki's quiet?
Organization: New Mexico State University
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 21:12:49 GMT

In article <1g8e7oINNklq@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
>In article <2g0HVB1w165w@kalki33>, kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
>>
>> Not gone. Just don't care much what evolutionists have to say. Except
>> for my own and the other devotees posts, everything here is rubbish.
>
>That reminds me.   About a month ago, I asked you what method you used
>to decide when a posting was "rubbish" or "worthless" or from someone
>who simply "didn't understand".
>
>Funny thing.   I don't recall you explaining that.   Care to explain
>now?
>
>jon.

I wouldn't expect a response if I were you.  I never received a
response from the Kalki when I showed them cases of observed
speciations.  Obviously the Kalki define "rubbish" the same way most
other fundamentalists do--any thoughts, opinions, theories or facts
that do not agree with their beliefs.  The only thing that amazes me
more than their insistence on going through life wearing blinders is
their astonishment at those who choose not to.

SD