HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kring@efes.physik.uni-kl.de (Thomas Kettenring)
Subject: Re: Are we privileged observers?
Keywords: universe,earth, paradox
Organization: FB Physik, Universitaet Kaiserslautern, Germany
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 15:29:53 GMT

Julian Shillcock writes:
>["I-want-a-scientific-reason-for-my-beliefs" preliminary deleted]
>Anyway the argument is: We can only observe those parts of the universe
>where the light has had time to reach us. If we assume a finite age
>of say 15 billion years or so then there is a "horizon" at 15 billion
>light years distant from us beyond which we cannot observe any events.

Yes, it's there (I think).

>Now, dp the laws of physics as we know them here hold beyond this horizon?
>[consequences deleted]

This looks like a meaningless question if this horizon is the singulary it
should be.  Analogous question:  do the laws of physics as we know them here
hold north of the North Pole?

There is no place "north of the North Pole", and there is no place "beyond
this horizon".

>We seem to need a meta-physics to tell us where the laws of physics hold.
>It is made even worse if the laws themselves change in time as we then
>have no idea what happens even in the parts of the universe we can observe.

Huh?  If we can observe them, we can look there if the laws of physics hold.

>(Alsom if the universe is infinite then how come we are still here?)

If trees are green then how come there are so many programming languages
around?

(That is, I couldn't find the point of your last question)

-- 
--------------thomas kettenring, 2 dan, kaiserslautern, germany---------------
Definition:  Idiot-proof  -  you are idiot-proof when you NEVER flame anybody.
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: jbm@hal.trl.OZ.AU (Jacques Guy)
Subject: Re: 360 day year
Organization: Telecom Research Labs, Melbourne, Australia
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 05:46:35 GMT

About that business of the year having once been 360 days
long as exemplified by various calendars. Why aren't those
even shorter calendars mentioned, namely:
    
    The Mayan Tzolkin (260 days)
    The Balinese year of 6 months of 35 days, count them: 210 days!

 I once made up a lovely theory that the Earth spun much faster
 in the days of dinosaurs. With the centrifugal force offsetting
 gravitation, the beasties at the equator would weigh much less
 (felt effect of gravity, folks, remember?), and those at the
 poles would feel heaviest and yes, you've guessed it, we ought to
 find the smallest fossils at the poles, and they should bigger
 and bigger as you move away towards the equatore. A scientific
 theory, because testable! If only I had the gall of Von Daeniken,
 and could stop laughing my head off just the time to write it 
 down in a book... I could retire and live in luxury. I vaguely
 remember that I had calculated that, with 2-hour long days,
 you'd live under 0.5G at the equator. Unfortunately, I
 couldn't reconcile it with those 210-days years. Just think:
 the Earth would have orbited the Sun in 420 hours, and
 would have had to be well within the orbit of Mercury. 


Newsgroups: talk.origins,sci.skeptic
From: Tim.ONeill@english.utas.edu.au (Tim O'Neill)
Subject: Re: Shroud exposed at early date (Tim O'Neill)
Organization: University of Tasmania (Australia)
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 02:45:34 GMT

In article <1992Aug10.103423@IASTATE.EDU>, kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:
> 
> In article <1992Aug10.031334.3916@newsroom.utas.edu.au>,
> Tim.ONeill@english.utas.edu.au (Tim O'Neill) writes:
> > If the latter is a reference to me, then I was calling people who
> > consider the medieval period to have been a primitive dark age of
> > unrelieved barbarism until the dawn of all that is wonderful in the
> > renaissance 'idiots' and 'morons'(this was how this whole thread
> > got started). The middle ages did produce artistic marvels (Chartres,
> > the Book of Kells etc) and were quite capable of producing the 
>       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > shroud and I was speaking as an irate medievalist. If those who continue 
> > to believe that the shroud dates to the first century also believe
> > that the middle ages were an artistic dark age, then my abuse
> > stands for them also. ;-)
> > Tim O'Neill
> 
>   Funny you should bring that up.  The Book of Kells was not a product of the
> church of the middle ages.  As the form of Latin used clearly indicates it is of
> Celtic origin, not Catholic.

It is a product of the Celtic Church, and not the Catholic one, but it
is still medieval.

>  I have forgotten the exact estimated date of
> production, but I am almost positive it was _before_ the start of the middle
> ages (500 AD).  The artwork is even more sophisticated keeping that in mind.

The manuscript dates from the late eighth/early ninth century which places it
smack-bang in the middle of the medieval period.
 
>   As for Chartres, the middle ages end in 1450 AD.  I suppose it depends what
> part of Chartres you are talking about, but I was under the impression it was
> more recent then that.

Its not. The Church of Notre Dame at Chatres, more commonly known as Chatres 
Cathedral, was built over a period of 30 years in the mid-thirteenth century, 
so it too is quite medieval.
 
>   Please note, I am not questioning that a great deal of excellent artwork came
> out of that period, just the examples given.

Which were both medieval. Can we get back to the shroud now?
Tim O'Neill
From: alanf@tekig6.PEN.TEK.COM (Alan M Feuerbacher)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Some questions for Laura. Please read it.
Date: 21 Aug 92 00:19:16 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <BtAuH0.DH2@nntp-sc.Intel.COM> pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey) writes:
>In article <6654@tekig7.PEN.TEK.COM> 
>alanf@tekig6.PEN.TEK.COM (Alan M Feuerbacher) writes:
><[deleted]
><Fundamentalists argue correctly that Jesus Christ himself believed in a
><global Flood.  They say he compared it to the coming end of the world.
><Do you disagree?  If so, on what basis?
>
>Ah, do you have proof that Jesus believed in a global Flood as fact? Now don't
>start quoting King James. After all that is an English translation of Greek
>scripture written by people who claimed to have heard Jesus speak in Aramaic
>almost 2 thousand years ago. And if you claim that all scripture is inspired, 
>what is the inspiration for Luke 14:26? And now that you've read Luke 14:26, 
>what do YOU say about Pick and Choose? What standards do you use? What is the 
>basis of your faith? Do you believe in Luke 14:26?


You raise an excellent point.  However, no one has proof of *any* historical
events, at least in the sense you seem to be talking about.  The flat earthers
figure NASA is playing a carnie game, deceiving people with all those photos
from outer space.  The lack of court style "proof" is what allows dopey
books like _Darwin On Trial_ by Phillip E. Johnson to claim that there is
no "proof" for evolution.

The point as far as believers in scriptural inerrancy is concerned is that
God could have preserved the Bible through thousands of years.  How can you
argue with that?  That fact that the Bible, as received, says Jesus believed
in the Flood is good enough for them.

I think the argument about Luke 14:26 has been beaten to death already, so I'll
not add any strokes.

As for the standards I use, the fact that there is no geological evidence
whatsoever for Noah's Flood tells me that the fundamentalist position is 
wrong.  If there was no Flood, and Jesus claimed there was, the whole
fundamentalist position falls apart.  Of course, they are free to postulate
any miracles they please.

This gets back to my main point -- either one takes the *whole* Bible on faith,
or rejects it.  In between points of view allow people to argue till they're
blue in the face and accomplish nothing.
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: julian@fraser.sfu.ca (Julian Shillcock)
Subject: Re: behavior and evolution
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 00:15:05 GMT

weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:
>>>Do you have any arguments _for_ divine intervention in nature?

>>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.
  
>>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
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?
DO I assume "Oh, she does not love me any more"? My point is that it
is not the reproducibility of the "acts of  love" that convince me of
her love, they just naturally follow. Even without them I can
trust her (or not perhaps) depending on our past history. 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.
       

julian

Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: davidli@simvax.labmed.umn.edu
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: "Whites First?" Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
Date: 12 Aug 92 17:40:31 GMT
Reply-To: davidli@simvax.labmed.umn.edu
Organization: Health Computer Sciences, U of MN, Mpls

In article <2855@fedfil.UUCP>, news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
>You've got this one just as wrong as you do the rest of them.  There
>weren't a whole lot of white people running around just after the 
>flood either...  just a few survivors from the ark and a few others
>here and there, you'd presume, who survived on mountain tops or on 
>small craft or floating debris.

Just out of curiosity, what range of numbers are we talking here?

Tens?  Hundreds?  Thousands?  Tens of Thousands? Hundreds of Thousands?
More?

According to the Genesis account, the range was in the =low= tens.

Assuming that the flood survivors were randomly dispersed (mountain tops
and small craft/floating debris are pretty random elements, wouldn't you
think?)  what do you think the odds are that even the 'single' person whose
skin genotype became genetically altered would even live long enough to
have sex which ended in conception of a child with similar genotype?  Heck,
what are the odds that the two survivors on top of some mountain were even a
male/female pair?

>Your whole premise is bogus.

Ted was responding to someone else here.  I would only point out that this is
yet another instance of the pot calling the kettle ...

-- David Paschall-Zimbel
From: cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: JW discourage education (was Re: dawkins/_the selfish gene_)
Date: 18 Aug 92 18:25:05 GMT
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA


In article <36947@sdcc12.ucsd.edu>, slinke@sdcc3.ucsd.edu writes:
|In article <omv7ocs@fido.asd.sgi.com> cj@sgi.com writes:
|>My degree is also in mathematics.  I found Sutter's posturing
|>to be utterly laughable.  Does he expect to awe his readers with
|>his stunning education?  That might work in his JW congregation,
|>where most people aren't likely to have math degrees, and would
|>be easily cowed.  It probably won't work here, where his audience
|>is likely to be expert.

|If I'm not mistaken, the Jehovah's Witnesses discourage their
|members from attending college for some sort of religious reason
|(interpretation of some Bible verse, It think).

This is correct.  However, I don't think they use any specific
Bible verse as justification.  Their arguments, at least at the
time they were aiming them at me, seemed to focus on the usual
JW chant that "the end is near, why waste time on anything other
than preaching?"  Also, they argue that college exposes people to
"worldly philosophies", temptations, and pernicious influences.

---
cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"I can stand brute force, but brute reason is quite unbearable.  
There is something unfair about its use. It is hitting below the 
intellect." -- Oscar Wilde
From: news@fedfil.UUCP (news)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Felt effects of gravity
Date: 13 Aug 92 22:49:09 GMT
Organization: HTE

In article <weWSfqq00VAwM0ko1r@andrew.cmu.edu>, ag3l+@andrew.cmu.edu (Arun K. Gupta) writes:
> 
> Question: what effect would the hypothetical lesser felt effect
> of gravity have on the flying creatures ?

I'll repost my article on antediluvian flight shortly.  The effect was that
300+ lb creatures flew in those days, including a 200 lb modern bird, in
all likelihood a type of eagle (the Argentine teratorn).

In the present age of the world, Mongols and other central asians have been
trying to breed eagles (berkuts) for size and strength for at least 2000
years, and cannot get them over a limit of around 25 lbs.  At that point
they begin to experience difficulty taking off from flat ground, especially
after a full meal.

Today, birds over 40 lbs have vestigial wings.



-- 
Ted Holden
HTE
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence
Date: 19 Aug 92 12:53:58 GMT
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA

In article <64O603Ie623z00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> jloucks@uts.amdahl.com (Jim Loucks) writes:
}m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
}
}>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.
}
}>It would be nice to see something based upon existing evidence.  Or perhaps
}>you will advocate the conclusion that there is no god based upon the lack
}>of evidence?
}
}Sigh. Then another. 

No confirmation/denial?  I see you do not wish to be hobbled by consistency.

No evident problems with hypocrisy, though.
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: root@lyra.scg.hac.com (Dave Fisher)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Felt Effect of Gravity
Date: 13 Aug 92 16:16:56 GMT
Reply-To: fisher@lyra.hac.com (Dave Fisher)
Organization: Hughes Aircraft Co., Carlsbad, CA

In article <o373oB4w164w@cellar.org> kml@cellar.org (Lazlo Hoover Toth) writes:
>
>I'm still confused by something, maybe somebody out there can clear it
>up for me:
>
>Astronauts who undergo long periods of space travel experience quite
>significant muscle deterioration.  They are travelling along at near-zero
>gravity for some time.  In other words, the LACK of gravity causes them
>to become weaker, because their supportive muscles are not needed as
>much.  
>
>So wouldn't a half-gravity earth have SMALLER animals?  Large animals
>wouldn't be hopping around like kangaroos; they'd be lying on their
>sides getting slowly picked apart by small mammals and insects, etc.

Muscles don't just grow because of use; they grow according to a "plan"
dictated by the DNA of the creature involved.  So there is no reason
to assume that lesser gravity would adversely affect any creature which 
evolved in the smaller gravitational field.  (Consider whales for a moment.)

Large animals evolving in a half-gravity earth (assuming the atmosphere
was earth-like, which is probably a very bad assumption) would face a
reduced heat dissipation problem, and a reduced structural support
problem.  But there still could be many factors influencing how big is
too big.

Dave Fisher
From: kring@efes.physik.uni-kl.de (Thomas Kettenring)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Holden Numbering
Date: 18 Aug 92 13:45:25 GMT
Organization: FB Physik, Universitaet Kaiserslautern, Germany

In article <714019201@sheol.UUCP>, throopw@sheol.UUCP (Wayne Throop) writes:
>First, just what is the Holden Number?  It is the weight in pounds-force
>over the square of the cube root of the mass in pounds-mass mass of
>any given creature.  So
>
>                     lbs        HN
>                +---------------------
>        cat     |     10        2.15
>       human    |    200        5.85
>      elephant  |  10000       21.5
>    brachiosaur | 150000       53.1
>
>What does this calculation mean?  It is a measure of force (the lbs
>weight) per available cross section (the lbs mass ^(2/3)).  The
>lbs mass cube-rooted and then squared because the mass is a rough
>indicator of volume, and hence the ^2/3 power of mass is a rough
>indicator of cross section.
>
>Whence then the Holden Limit of 27?  Well, if an animal is lifing
>more than its own weight, we can simply add the additional force
>to the top of the ratio, yielding a Holden Number which characterizes
>that lift.  Holden claims that Kazmaier's 1000 lb deadlift is the
>largest lift that any creature can perform, and thus he calculates
>
>         (1000 + 350) / 350^(2/3)  ~=  27
>
>to get a figure for the maximum possible Holden Number of any creature.
>Since this is just beyond the actual Holden Number for elephants,
>Ted then jumped to the conclusion that elephants are the largest
>creatures that can exist.

I just had an idea.  Elephants are used as workers in India.  They lift logs
and other heavy things.  How much can an elephant lift?  You have to add this
to compute the "correct" HN for an elephant.  What's good for Ted's darling
Kazmeier should be good for his second darling Jumbo.  But now Ted will
probably claim that the heaviest elephant - darling #2 - was not able to
lift weights.  Or rather, he will ignore it or use his usual sophisticated
refutation of calling it "bullshit", as he always does with arguments that
oppose his views.

-- 
--------------thomas kettenring, 2 dan, kaiserslautern, germany---------------
Definition:  Idiot-proof  -  you are idiot-proof when you NEVER flame anybody.
From: scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu (Scharle)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: The problem with scientific creationism
Keywords: creationism, deconstructionism
Date: 18 Aug 92 15:16:40 GMT
Reply-To: scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu (Scharle)
Organization: Univ. of Notre Dame


    The problem with scientific creationism is the name.

    It's hopelessly outdated.

    In the nineteenth century, the fad word that one had to add to 
one's latest ideas was "scientific".  Thus, for example, "scientific
socialism".  Which, of course, had nothing to do with science.  But
it was the thing to do.

    Why do the creationists keep to this fad?  Really, "scientific 
creationism" is more old-fashioned than 78 RPM records.  It's like 
saying "groovy creationism."  But, I warn you, don't try "hi-fi 
creationism" or "creationist existentialism" either.  Definitely 
passe.

    You'd be better off to try "creationist deconstructionism", or 
"post-modern creationism".  Better hurry, though, they may be out of 
date if you don't spread the word quick.  Maybe you could try to 
anticipate a little -- here are some suggestions:

    Neo-modernist creationism 
    Post-deconstructionist creationism
    Neo-structuralist creationism

    BTW, if you'd use one of those terms, you might even get someone
to take you seriously.


-- 
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
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject:  360 day year
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 13:44:45 GMT

In article <26595@life.ai.mit.edu> uunet!ucsd!sdsu!hercules.SDSU.EDU!news@ncar.UCAR.EDU writes:
}Ramadan starts Feb 23rd 1993 (+- 1 day depending on location).
}Yes, Arabic calendar is Lunar calendar which has 355 days per year.

Interesting.  Then The Arabic portion of earth currently orbits the sun in
355 days while the rest orbits in just over 365 days.

Or maybe the correlation between a calendar and a solar year isn't all that
Ted makes it out to be...


Xref: sparky talk.origins:9560 sci.skeptic:14426
From: dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott)
Newsgroups: talk.origins,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Shroud exposed at early date (Tim O'Neill)
Date: 17 Aug 92 00:14:31 GMT
Organization: Electrical and Electronic Eng., University of Adelaide

In article <schumach.713832857@convex.convex.com> schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher) writes:
>In <1992Aug13.034055.26339@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes:
>>>A reasonable possibility is that it was done through a variant of the
>>>then-common method of rubbing:  slather a perfectly ordinary 14th
>>>century demi-round carving of JC with perfectly ordinary 14th century
>>>tempura paint, wrap shroud around it, press and rub gently and then

>>Hmmmmmmmmmm, don't buy it. The image would look stretched if that was the case.
>
>It does look stretched, as though it were draped over an OBJECT.

No it doesn't. There is no horizontal stretching.
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: zuber_rg@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Robert G Zuber)
Subject: Yes or No, Up or Down
Organization: HAC - Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 19:14:00 GMT

	A simple yes or no question for Mr. Loucks:

Should the ICR's version of creationism be taught in the
public high-school science classes as science?
From: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: ARGH!!! helping -- corrected graph
Date: 19 Aug 92 01:25:07 GMT
Organization: animal -- coelomate -- deuterostome

In article <94003@bu.edu> colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby) writes:

Argh, my brain is really, truly fried today -- the graph should
correspond to the text and read:

		]*
cost/benefit	] *
ratio		]  *
	1.0	]    *(1)	
		]      *
	r	]        *(2)
		]           *
		]__________________

			time

(1) parent should seek to halt parental care
(2) offspring should want care to extend to here -- parent-offspring
conflict will occur in the time between these two points

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: st1lv@rosie.uh.edu (McLeod, Stephen)
Subject: Re: Creationists: EXPLAIN THIS -- the Brazil Nut Effect
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: University of Houston
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 21:05:00 GMT

In article <1992Aug21.173405.17394@city.cs>, lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun) writes...
>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

hmm hmm hmm.  it will be a glory day when I figure out how to kill based on
user id rather than subject matter.
On the other hand, when I started reading your stuff I kinda believed.  These
days, I get quite crusty to religious bufoons like you.  Cheers.
---
Stephen McLeod        1+1=2  ... Tun , "No it doesn't"  Others: "Explain!"
The Eternal? Student  Tun, "No it doesn't" ...
Newsgroups: talk.origins