HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: isaak@aurora.com (Mark Isaak)
Subject: Re: Yet Another Saturn Myth Variant
Summary: Coral and the Once Hollow Earth
Reply-To: isaak@aurora.com (Mark Isaak)
Organization: The Aurora Group
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 93 15:39:31 GMT

In article <C17wwC.1Et@athena.cs.uga.edu> keck@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul) writes:
>Fossil coral records, specifically from the Devonian period, show annual and
>daily growth rings (as do modern corals).  These clearly point to a year
>made of about 380 days

At first glance, this may seem to contradict the Once Hollow Earth
Theory.  After all, if the Earth were Once Hollow, giving it a greater
radius, then conservation of angular momentum says it should rotate
slower, giving fewer days per year, not more.  The mistake lies in
making the uniformitarian assumption that ancient coral would show
only one growth ring per day.  Even today, there are many parts of the
world which have two high tides per day, and tides would undoubtedly
affect coral growth.  The Devonian coral was likely subject to such
tides, so its growth rings actually show only 190 days per year--proof
that the earth once rotated much slower than now, and a strong
indication of its once hollow status.

Is there other evidence of the Earth's rotation rate changing?  Yes.
The Mayans, in addition to their 365-day astonomical calendar, had a
260-day civil and ceremonial calendar.  Why else would they have a
calendar of such a length if not as a holdover from days when the year
really was 260 days long?  The Mayans also have a rich heritage of
legends about an underground civilization in the earliest days of
humanity.  It is no coincidence that their 260-day calendar is tied
in with events from those legends.
-- 
Mark Isaak           "Every generation thinks it has the answers, and every
isaak@aurora.com      generation is humbled by nature." - Philip Lubin
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: trott@remus.rutgers.edu (Rich Trott)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: More Gish
Keywords: one more
Date: 22 Jan 93 04:14:27 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.


One more quote from Dr. Duane T. Gish.  

I forgot this little gem:

CLAIM #3:  "The alleged horse series was created more out of
imagination than from fossil evidence.  The fossils for this series
are not found in the proper time sequence as indicated by the
evolutionist, and the major types _appear abrubtly_ without
transitions.  And there is an interesting discrepancy in the skeletal
development of this series.  [Visual showing Eohippus with 18 pairs of
ribs, Orohippus with 15 pairs of ribs, Pliohippus with 19 pairs of
ribs, and Equus scotti with 18 pairs of ribs]"

Ignoring for now that he skipped several species (and several
million years) between Orohippus and Pliohippus, does anybody know
what he is talking about in that second sentence?  (The first sentence
appears to be a conclusion drawn from the assertion in the second
sentence.)  The author/editor/publisher/whoever conveniently neglected
to cite a source for the claim that the fossils are "not found in the
proper time sequence."  Anyone have any sources they can recommend that might shed
some light on the truth or lack thereof of this assertion?

 
-- 
Rich Trott
trott@remus.rutgers.edu
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: cust_ts@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Tero Sand)
Subject: Re: Has Macro-evolution Occured?
Organization: University of Helsinki
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 10:28:32 GMT

In article <1993Jan25.145853.1@woods.ulowell.edu> cotera@woods.ulowell.edu writes:
>In article <1993Jan23.233659.24533@microsoft.com>, russpj@microsoft.com (Russ Paul-Jones) writes: 
>> Human embryos develop gill-slits at an early stage, later to lose them.
>
>It's my understanding that evolutionists no longer view this as evidence
         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^

ROTFL

	Tero Sand
-- 
	EMail: cust_ts@cc.helsinki.fi   or   custts@cc.helsinki.fi
   "I feel most ministers who claim they've heard God's voice are eating
too much pizza before they go to bed at night, and it's really an 
intestinal disorder, not a revelation." - Reverend Jerry Falwell
From: carlip@landau.ucdavis.edu (Steve Carlip)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Who does Phillip Johnson think the creationists are?
Date: 28 Jan 93 03:05:48 GMT
Organization: Physics, UC Davis

In article <1993Jan25.130636.1@woods.ulowell.edu> cotera@woods.ulowell.edu writes:
[...]
>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).

Please do; I'll be happy to look at them.  Note that nonconstant decay
rates would be a potential disproof of the Standard Model in elementary
particle physics, which is one of the best tested theories in modern
theoretical physics.  This should be interesting.

(Interaction strengths, and therefore decay rates, *do* change at
extremely high energies.  But if this is going to be your argument,
please check the energies first --- you don't want to end up saying
"Decay rates would have been different if the earth had been a plasma.")

Steve Carlip
carlip@dirac.ucdavis.edu
From: bocmunro@bnr.co.uk (Bruce Munro)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: They want to debate Phillip Johnson
Date: 25 Jan 93 15:22:07 GMT
Organization: BNR Europe, New Southgate, London.
NNTP-Posting-Host: bnsgs179.bnr.co.uk

In article <qXiuXB1w165w@kalki33.lakes.trenton.sc.us> system@kalki33.lakes.trent
on.sc.us (Kalki Dasa) writes:
>
>The basis of creationism is that there is something else in addition 
>to matter. There is a "spiritual" element, which is not detectable by 
>scientific instruments, but which is nevertheless real, and which 
>exerts a definite controlling influence on material phenomena.

Eh? If these forces of yours can affect material phenomena then obviously
they should be detectable by scientific instruments. Or are scientific
instruments not material phenomena?

-- 
Bruce Munro.  <B.O.C.Munro@bnr.co.uk> (Note new address)
BNR Europe Ltd, Oakleigh Rd South, London N11 1HB. 
Phone : +44 81 945 2174 or +44 81 945 4000 x2174
"There are no strangers, only friends we don't recognise" - Hank Wangford
From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Voyagers on the Ark of Noah
Date: 26 Jan 93 05:32:53 GMT
Followup-To: talk.origins
Organization: The Language Game Inc.

In article <1993Jan25.122107.1@woods.ulowell.edu>, cotera@woods.ulowell.edu
wrote:
> 
> In article <1993Jan12.202852.12010@anasazi.com>, scott@anasazi.com (Scott Gibson) writes: 
> > So, if plants, fish, and insects could have survived, then so could
> > many other "kinds" of life.  Why the ark?
> 
> How would, say, cats, dogs, people, apes, zebras, pigs, and just about any
> other animal, survive without being able to breath?  The flood waters were much
> higher than the highest mountain.  So no animal (or at least most) could float
> on the surface for a year.  They'd fatigue quickly.  Furthermore, they wouldn't
> have any food.

And we would expect that they had enough food on a small ark, eh? I guess
it's miracle time again. So why the need of the ark? 

Kent
---
sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND
Private activities on the Net, opinions are not Apple's, they are mine.
From: jviv@usmi04.midland.chevron.com (John Viveiros)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Ideology and Indoctrination
Date: 25 Jan 93 23:38:22 GMT
Distribution: world,local
Organization: Chevron

I would like someone to explain to me what Phillip Johnson believes in
in somewhat less that 5000 words.  Let me see if I can guess from
reading (okay, skimming through pages of stuff) his articles:

*Slow Darwinian evolution is inadequate (my word).  I agree.  I am not
totally convinced that we understand how the various biotic explosions
have occurred; the argument for increased competition for newly opened
ecological niches just doesn't do it for me.  This does not invalidate
evolution, or validate creation, it simply states my personal belief
that science has not presented a convincing mechanism to me.

*Biologists and Paleontologist are actively supressing data that
conflicts with slow Darwinian evolution.  BULLSHIT.  There would be no
better feather in the cap of any scientist than to destroy an old
paradigm.  It's the first thing people will do to make a name for
themselves.  As a geologist, if I could come up with a better
alternative than plate tectonics, we'd be talking about Viveiros's
isostacy rather than Wegener's continental drift or Wilson cycles.

*Life could not possibly evolve to the complexity we see it today.
(I think Phillip allows us 4 billion years).  I agree that it seems
incredibly unlikely that proteins, DNA, etc could have evolved by
accident.  It seems like the present research still doesn't make this
step easy.  Phillip takes on faith that God had an active role.
Scientists take on faith that known scientific principles (but unknown
processes) were sufficient.  The evidence is not convincing either way.

*Life has evolved, but it is not Darwinian evolution.  I think what Phillip
wants to say is that it is not a natural process.  (Couldn't you just
say that without the pages of stuff that come with it).  I've posted
before that I don't give a rip about "Darwin's" theory of the mechanism
of evolution, I can *see* the evidence that it has occurred.  I guess my
best argument against evolution as a supernatural process is the
absolute waste of creating dinosaurs, trilobites, and all the other less
significant (to the non-paleontologist) extinctions.  Why would God
create species man had no use for, since they were essentially created
for mankind's use (loose interpretation of Genesis)?

Please correct me if I have mistated science's or your position Phillip
(or if you are too busy, someone else could point out where I
misinterpreted Phillip's discourse).

These posts should come with abstracts :-).

-- 
John Viveiros     (jviv@chevron.com)
Chevron USA        Standard disclaimer applies
Midland TX 
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Subject: Re: Evolutionism as Cultural Imperialism
Reply-To: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 21:28:41 GMT

In article <1764@tdat.teradata.COM>, swf@tools3teradata.com (Stan Friesen)
writes:
> In article <1993Jan14.172102.5331@linus.mitre.org>, m23364@mwunix (James
Meritt) writes:
> |> }: If this poll really holds water I am highly alarmed as to the state of
> |> }: US basic scientific education. 
> |> }
> |> }
> |> }	So are we!
> |> 
> |> That is why (I suspect) that the upcoming President has enrolled his
> |> daughter in a private school...

   I suspect H. Clinton has an alergy to gunfire; remember where she lives?
 
> Yep, it is why, if I ever have any children, they will *not* be sent to
public
> schools (in the U.S. sense of 'public').

   My kids will go to public school just like I did and I will proudly
support the public school system!  Harumph!

   Of course I live in a university town in Iowa and, like my parents, I
will teach my kid 10x what he learns in school by just getting involved
and showing them things...

...we have to fix the public schools, after all, or the Union will fail.

Dan
Danwell@IASTATE.EDU
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: FAQ's
From: kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu
Date: 25 Jan 93 20:02:55 EST
Organization: Wesleyan University

   Is there an ftp site where all the t.o FAQ's are available?

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: craigm@bioch.ox.ac.uk (Craig Morton)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Brinkman's question on carbohydrates
Date: 21 Jan 93 17:50:14 GMT
Organization: Department of Biochemistry, University of Oxford
Originator: craigm@nmrc.ocms


In article <233@fedfil.UUCP>, news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:

[section deleted]

|> The descriptions in WinC amount to an explaination of historically
|> recorded phenomena.  Basically, velikovsky is saying that chemicals entering
|> out atmosphere from that of Venus formed, possibly in combination with 
|> elements of our own atmosphere, hydrocarbons which rained down on earth 
|> during the time of plagues mentioned in Exodus and, at a somewhat later
|> time, some of these same chemicals, or others, or again some other combination
|> of earth and venus atmospheric elements, which were in suspension in our
|> clouds still, somehow or other formed into edible compounds (carbohydrates)
|> and condensed out.
|> 
|> Nothing magical there.
|> 

Wow. If that isn't magic I'd hate to think what was.....

Maybe the Earth orbiting Saturn with its axis of rotation pointing at the planet.
.....

Nahhhh, now I'm being silly.

|> 
|> -- 
|> Ted Holden
|> HTE

Craig.


Craig Morton                          ][
Research Assistant,                   ][ If you're not part of the solution,
Oxford Centre for Molecular Sciences, ][ You're part of the precipitate,
South Parks Road, Oxford.             ][
From: skroger@zeus.calpoly.edu (Seth L. Kroger)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Evolution implied by the Bible
Date: 27 Jan 93 21:16:41 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department, Cal Poly SLO

cotera@woods.ulowell.edu writes:
>In article <72610d3d@ofa123.fidonet.org>, Dr.Pepper@f241.n103.z1.fidonet.org writes:
>>  > However here is the Theory of Creationism in a nutshell: God
>>  > created the universe.
>> 
>> Here is my rebuttle: No evidence.
>
>Do you see the irony of this statement? Every time a Creationist brings up the
>gaps in the fossil record, Evolutionists say "Lack of evidence does not
>contradict evolution." Now you're using the same argument against my theory.

You don't get it do you?  The point is that there is evidence for evolution,
just that it's not as complete and perfect as we'd like.  The entire fossil
record shows the pattern of evolution, but the gaps don't necessarily mean
that the idea of evolution is wrong.

>Anyway, let me give you some evidence (although hardly proof): The first law of
>thermodynamics says that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only
>changed from one form to another.  The second law says that the amount of
>entropy in the universe is decreasing.  This means that the amount of energy
                            ^^^^^^^^^^
You mean increasing, don't you?

>that can be put to useful work is decreasing.  From this we get the idea of the
>heat death of the universe.  Now if we go backwards in time we see that the
>entropy of the universe is decreasing.  Eventually we get to a point where
>there is no entropy.  So before that point either the laws of physics no longer
>hold (no evidence of this), or God created the universe.

Ray, thank you!  Really!  I knew I was forgetting something in my 2nd law
FAQ.

1.)  If the universe started off with zero entropy, how does that show that
God created the universe?  Since scientists don't know what things were like
"before" the Big Bang (of even if there is a "before") how can you
possibably conclude that zero entropy is due to God and not just how things
were then?

2.)  Even so, the example doesn't demonstrate creation over evolution.  It
only deals with the instant of beginning, not what happened since.  It also
says nothing about local fluctuations in entropy, like in the vicinity of a
small rock called earth.

>--Ray Cote


|======================================================================|
| 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
From: cotera@woods.ulowell.edu
Subject: Re: Voyagers on the Ark of Noah
Organization: University of Lowell
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 17:21:07 GMT

In article <1993Jan12.202852.12010@anasazi.com>, scott@anasazi.com (Scott Gibson) writes: 
> So, if plants, fish, and insects could have survived, then so could
> many other "kinds" of life.  Why the ark?

How would, say, cats, dogs, people, apes, zebras, pigs, and just about any
other animal, survive without being able to breath?  The flood waters were much
higher than the highest mountain.  So no animal (or at least most) could float
on the surface for a year.  They'd fatigue quickly.  Furthermore, they wouldn't
have any food.
--Ray Cote
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Ideology and Indoctrination
Date: 25 Jan 1993 23:29:49 GMT
Organization: sgi
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <1k0tpu$5mp@agate.berkeley.edu>, philjohn@garnet.berkeley.edu (Phillip Johnson) writes:
>
> I recognize that this frank talk will cause offense.  My purpose
> is not to insult anyone, however, but to free minds.  Many of you
> have been indoctrinated not to question assumptions that are
> based on ideology rather than evidence.  You can be free of that
> indoctrination if you wish to be.

Oh boy.

jon.
From: edm@twisto.compaq.com (Ed McCreary)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Moon dust
Date: 26 Jan 93 16:28:02 GMT
Organization: Compaq Computer Corp

>>>>> On 25 Jan 93 22:06:46 GMT, brinkman@si151a.llnl.gov said:
b> Nntp-Posting-Host: si151a.llnl.gov

>>>>> On 25 Jan 93 22:06:46 GMT, brinkman@si151a.llnl.gov said:
b> Nntp-Posting-Host: si151a.llnl.gov


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

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

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

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

b>    If scientists REALLY expected there to be a 20-40 foot accumulation of
b> lunar dust, why do you think they would let the first Apollo launch go off as
b> scheduled?  Doesn't this suggest a rather depraved indifference towards human
b> life? 

..rest deleted to save bandwidth...

NASA knew that the Lunar lander wouldn't sink into the surface.  The
Soviet probe Luna 9 landed (practially crashed) on the moon on 
Jan. 31, 1966.  We followed with Surveyor on May 30, 1966.  The first
picture returned from Surveyor 1 was an image of it's footpad, just to
make sure it didn't sink.  Both the US and the Soviets landed several
more probes on the surface before Armstrong stepped off the LEM.

--
Ed McCreary                                               ,__o
edm@twisto.compaq.com                                   _-\_<,
"If it were not for laughter, there would be no Tao."  (*)/'(*)
From: swf@tools3teradata.com (Stan Friesen)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: uniformitarianism doesn't rule out catastrophes
Date: 26 Jan 93 01:20:43 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <1993Jan21.125825.13667@news.nd.edu>, scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu (scharle) writes:
|> 
|>     Isn't it true that certain laws of uniformitarianism, so to speak,
|> are mathematically equivalent to corresponding conservation laws?
|> For example, that the universe is the same over all locations in space 
|> (isotopy?) is equivalent to the conservation of energy, or that 
|> uniformity over time is equivalent to conservation of ...?  Or are we
|> talking about completely different things?
|> 

I am not entirely sure, since my training is not in physics,
but I think you are right.  Certainly there is a relationship between
temporal uniformitarianism and spatial uniformitarianism (that is non-
uniformity in one of space or time implies a non-uniformity in the other).

But I do seem to remember hearing something about the even stonger result
you mentioned.

-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
From: salem@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Bruce Salem)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Ideology and Indoctrination
Date: 26 Jan 1993 04:12:15 GMT
Organization: Stanford Univ. Earth Sciences
Distribution: world,local
NNTP-Posting-Host: pangea.stanford.edu

In article <1993Jan25.233822.9999@nntpserver.chevron.com> jviv@usmi04.midland.chevron.com (John Viveiros) writes:
>I would like someone to explain to me what Phillip Johnson believes in
>in somewhat less that 5000 words.  Let me see if I can guess from
>reading (okay, skimming through pages of stuff) his articles:

	Without doing an injustice to what you have said, it is easly
to very concisely state Philip Johnson's position without having to
bring science or his grasp of it into the basic statement. It is
the following as I read him:

	Johnson: Because Mankind was created for God's purpose,
	Mankind could not have evolved from lower lifeforms and
	most notably because his Mind=Soul is not material.

	Remember that Johnson is a lawyer and not a scientist, what
he raises as objections to the science behind evolution is old hat
and so are his brashly stated prejudices, and that I would guess, it
is my opinion, that his chief concern is moral authority, founded in
some trancendant divine order which necessitates Special Creation.

	Did I see that you are a geologist. I am too, and I got interested
in this group because of my training in Biology and Earth Sciences. I
used to spend much more of my effort here correcting misinformation about
the claims made by scientists. I now leave that to others. I have become
more interested in the obvious prejudice, unexamined belief, of the opposition
to evolution, not because they are merely wrong, but because their ignorance
comes from their inability to examine and test their own belief, not because
relavant information is not readily available.

	Asside from the futile attempt to get bogoted people to examine
their own beliefs, there is some hope that we can get their assumptions
stated in the open as philosophical propositions whose consequences we can
examine. This frank discussion of what these assumptions mean is often
lacking. Philip Johnson has made a contribution in that he is not shy
about stating his prejudices. He is a notch above Bob Bales or Ted Holden,
but I'd like to get him to work out the consequences of these beliefs.

	I, for one, do not necessarily think that Civilization, or
society, would fall apart if morals were not dictated from on high
or if they changed with human situations or were merely human artifacts
such as the plough or birth control pills.

	I do not think that spiritual enlightenment or purpose people
find for themselves depends upon Special Creation, or disproving
evolution.

	I do not believe that Man's purpose has to be necessarily bound
with a divine teleology. Man need not find his purpose in God or a Creation
by God. Nor is it the end of the world if that world dictates not necessity
to Man's existance in particular or to his purpose in being in particular.

Bruce Salem



Newsgroups: talk.origins