HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Ignorance in high places
Date: 28 Dec 92 17:19:27 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: jgacker@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker)

In article <1992Dec28.140025.28394@nsisrv.gsfc.nasa.gov>, jgacker@news (James G. Acker) writes:
>       Koop is a very staunch fundamentalist Christian, just in case
>you couldn't figure that out.  He spoke two months ago at my church,
>and it is interesting how 1) his leanings and beliefs almost
>disqualified him from the position of Surgeon General, in which a
>religious belief should not be considered, and 2) he became an
>effective anti-AIDS crusader, advocating policies (such as distribution
>and use of condoms) which make fundamentalist crusaders pale.

Koop was picked because of his well known religious anti-abortion stance.

What's interesting about his AIDS crusade is that he never wanted to have
anything to do with it (too icky), but Reagan publicly announced--without
any warning--that he had asked Koop to prepare a report.  Koop faced it
like a doctor, used the c-word to his own horror, and realizing that his
report would never be acceptable to Reagan and company, went outside the
usual channels to get the report printed.  This was small atonement for
Koop's half a decade of simply ignoring the issue.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
From: philjohn@garnet.berkeley.edu ()
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: TIME cover story
Date: 27 Dec 1992 23:03:18 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: garnet.berkeley.edu

   Last week's TIME magazine cover story (Dec. 28) was titled
"What Does Science Tell Us About God?".  The story (by Robert
Wright) began by saying that "if you're religious in a
conventional sense, you probably don't seek theological guidance
from physicists."  Many people, however, are "religiously
inclined, but reaching for scientific support" for their beliefs.

   Some of the world's most prominent scientists seem to
encourage this public attitude of looking to science to provide a
basis for religion.  For example, Leon Lederman is publishing a
book called "The God Particle," and the cosmo-theologies of
Stephen Hawking and Carl Sagan has been seen or read by millions. 
Moreover, TIME said that "many, perhaps most, evolutionary
biologists" now believe that "the coming of highly intelligent
life was close to inevitable," because of a supposed inherent
tendency of evolution to favor "behavioral flexibility," which
demands "complex information processing - smarts."  This is in
line with a general physical law waiting to be discovered which
"would carve out local exceptions to the general tendency of
things to become more chaotic."  TIME quotes Charles Bennett as
saying that such a law would play a role "formerly assigned to
God." TIME adds that others "would say that such a law is
EVIDENCE of God -- not a God who created human beings out of
dust, but a God with longer time horizons."

     When the U.S. National Academy of Sciences faced the threat
of creation-science in 1981, it passed a resolution saying that
"Religion and science are separate and mutually exclusive realms
of human thought whose presentation in the same context leads to
misunderstanding of both scientific theory and religious belief." 

     My questions are:  (1) Was this resolution merely a stick to
beat the creationists with, or does it apply to the National
Academy's own members?  (2) Should we "seek theological guidance
from physicists (or biologists)?"  We seem to be getting a lot of
it lately.
From: David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Lionel Tun: Evolutionary Relic
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Nov 17 1992
Date: 23 Dec 92  15:52:06

Subject: Lionel Tun: evolutionary relic.
Who: jsg1@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (JONATHAN SCOTT GIBSON)
ID: <1992Dec21.045654.38203@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu>
 
>> Let me second a fellow poster:  Care to post the theory of creation?
 
>Yeah, I've asked about that one now for two years, and nobody from
>the creation field has provided me with one. It's really sad, and
>when there's a lack of a creation based theory (I deliberately left
>out Hoyle :-) ), then the next best thing you could do is to sabotage
>existing theories.
 
JSG> "Well, the theory of creation goes like this:" [occult prattle
JSG> deleted] Quoted directly fom Genesis chapter 1 in the New
JSG> American Standard Bible. That is the theory of Creation to
JSG> whoever asked."
 
You poor, dear child! Please take your Proziac like the nice doctor
told you to. You'll feel much better!

--- Squish v1.01
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: jbaker@gmuvax2.gmu.edu (John Baker)
Subject: Re: TIME cover story
Organization: George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia, USA
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 23:05:40 GMT

In article <1hln3fINNlep@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
>In article <1hlcnmINNkrb@agate.berkeley.edu>, philjohn@garnet.berkeley.edu writes:
>>
>>     When the U.S. National Academy of Sciences faced the threat
>> of creation-science in 1981, it passed a resolution saying that
>> "Religion and science are separate and mutually exclusive realms
>> of human thought whose presentation in the same context leads to
>> misunderstanding of both scientific theory and religious belief." 
>
>It seems to me that where the Creation-Science people go wrong is
>in trying to play both games at once.  People like Morris claim
>that physical evidence supports their beliefs, but they also claim
>that where Science and Faith conflict, Faith wins.

Science and faith should never conflict.  If God is the Creator, and
faith seeks knowledge about God, then the two should be in harmony.
If they are not, one needs to re-evaluate BOTH.  Either the scientific
conclusion is based on error, or your theology needs re-thinking.

However, it is rediculous to consider the two separate.  To do so is to
say that either we cannot make conclusions based on scientific
observation, or that God is unknowable.  The latter is what the U.S.
N.A.S. seems to be saying.  I think they have a valid point to make;
that scientific methods and theological methods are quite different.
However, the results of the two should be entirely compatible.

>Then the Academy of Sciences resolution is perfectly reasonable,
>because what it's saying is that if you keep Faith in your back
>pocket as a kind of magic argument-winner, then appealing to
>Science does indeed lead to a misunderstanding.   If Faith is
>the ultimate arbiter, then searching for physical evidence that
>you are prepared to toss out if it does not suit you, is basically
>a waste of time.

It is interesting that creationists claim this is exactly what the
evolutionists do with much of their evidence - they present the few
cases that support evolution and ignore all else.  They complain that
evolutionists seek and promote alleged transitional forms and shaky
theories as fact, while often neglecting to mention contrary evidence.

When you look at popular "scientific" authors, you find that many are
making theological conclusions based entirely on their interpretation of
a little data and a lot of speculation.  It seems they are only trying to
justify their beliefs.  To me, this is just as bad as ignoring science
entirely based on your religious beliefs.

John Baker
jbaker@gmuvax2.gmu.edu

P.S.  Could someone send me the FAQ file?  Thanks...
From: murgesh@entropy.esd.sgi.com (Murgesh Navar)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Beginning of Time and the Rig Veda
Date: 29 Dec 92 20:42:17 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.


	
	Then there was neither being nor non-being:
	There was no air, nor firmament beyond it.
	Was there a stirring ? Where ? Beneath what cover ?
	Was there a great abyss of unplumbed water ?

	There was no death nor anything immortal;
	Nor any sign dividing day from night.
	That One thing, in the stillness, breathed quiescent;
	No second thing existed whatsoever.

	Darkness was hidden in a deeper darkness;
	This All was as a sea without dimensions;
	The void still held unformed what was potential,
	Until the power of Warmth produced the sole One...

	Who truly knows, and who can here declare it ?
	Whence it was born, and how this world was fashioned ?
	The gods came later than the earths creation:
	Who knows then out of what the world has issued ?

	Whatever he made the world or did not make it,
	He knows whence this creation came, he only
	Who in the highest heavens guards and watches;
	He knows indeed, but then, perhaps, he knows not!

	
	A hymn from the Rig Veda (2000 BC). The Rig Veda 
is the earliest of Hindu/Vedic Texts. This was primarily 
the religion of the Aryans at there advent into India. 

					-murgesh
	
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: Uniformity:  miniscule cause and monstrous effect
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 13:57:56 GMT

In article <179@fedfil.UUCP> news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
}I claim that is obviously and patently absurd, and I'm willing to rest my
}case this one.  Anybody wishing to believe Throop on this may feel free.

Please?
I don't think that you claims about anything can be taken at face value, but
PLEASE hold to your word this once and rest your case!!!!!
From: mls@panix.com (Michael Siemon)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Cosmos without Gravitation
Summary: ambiguity in the statement
Date: 29 Dec 92 22:16:18 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix & Internet, NYC

In article <1hq1ueINNhev@hpscit.sc.hp.com> dave@ptp.hp.com (Dave Waller) writes:
>In article <1992Dec29.164826.5044@linus.mitre.org> m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec29.143703.7029@hsr.no> onar@hsr.no (Onar Aam) writes:
...

>>}>13. would not have been able to obtain 
>>}>spherical form, especially those which do not rotate,
>>}>as Mercury or the moon (with respect to its primary)

>>}That is simply not true. The moon is rotating ...

>>wobbles, not rotate.  If it rotated, 100% would (eventually)
>>become visable.  It doesn't.

>I believe you are incorrect on this one, Jim. The moon MUST be rotating,

There is a difficulty in interpreting the original statement -- namely,
what are you taking as the moon's "primary?"  Indeed the moon "wobbles"
(libration, it's called) with respect to the earth, and there is no
earthrise on the moon corresponding to moonrise on the earth.  However,
there is a sunrise/sunset and a real rotation of the moon on its axis
(against absolute space :-))  Similarly, a planet "locked" with one
face towards the sun is (as one of the widgeted citations above notes)
is of course rotating once as it revolves around the sun.

Moreover, it is NOT particularly mandatory to have a gaseous or liquid
body in rotation to develop a spherical shape -- all that is needed is
some sufficient degree of deformability under gravitational forces.  It
is the symmetry of the FORCE field which constrains that deformation
into a "figure of rotation."  (obviously, a fluid *will* conform to that
constraint more readily than rock does :-))
>and indeed, it's period is about 28 days. Otherwise, how could it orbit
>the earth once every 28 days and keep the same face oriented at the
>earth's surface? Think about it.
>
>As for the "earthrise", well, that is simply wrong. What this person
>must be referring to are some of the pictures that have been taken close
>to the earth-relative horizon on the moon, which gives us a neat image
>of the earth "rising" over the horizon.
>-- 
>Dave Waller
>Hewlett-Packard Co.
>Workstation Systems Division
>Sunnyvale Channel Partner Consulting


-- 
Michael L. Siemon	"We honour founders of these starving cities
mls@panix.com		 Whose honour is the image of our sorrow ...
			 They built by rivers and at night the water
			 Running past the windows comforted their sorrow."
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: swf@tools3teradata.com (Stan Friesen)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Returned mail: Host unknown (fwd)
Date: 24 Dec 92 00:24:46 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <9212172145.AA10073@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov>, jgacker@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker) writes:
|> : 
|> : Is this the supposed Triassic bird?
[in reference to Chaterjee's Protoavis].
|> : If so, it is *extremely* questionable.
|> 
|> 	No.  It's _Sinornis_, younger than Archaeopteryx.  Apparently
|> more like a bird than Archy.  Found in China.  (February _Science_).
|> Archy is 150 m.y. old, Sinornis is 135 m.y. old.

Ah, so, a *slightly* earlier Jurassic bird from China [I do not remember, is this
still Late Jurassic, or is it Middle Jurassic?].
This is a different kettle of fish entirely.
I had not heard of this beastie, so I do not know how good the evidence is.
|> 
|> 	"they [the conodont animal] evolved bony teeth while remaining
|> otherwise squishy.  Only later did they adapt bone for other purposes,
|> such as armor or a skeleton.  It's a revolutionary idea, and one that
|> moves the conodont animals, once an obscure enigma, into the spotlight
|> of evolution.  "They were probably a trivial part of the ecological
|> system," says Sansom, "but they were part of the lineage that gave
|> rise to us."
|> 
|> 	So, in between the mud and the mammal, there was a squishy
|> worm.  How fun!

But not really that surprising, many people (myself included) have long felt that
Amphioxis (the Cephalochordate) is a reasonably good model for the ancestors of
the vertebrates, and it is essentially a small interstitial worm.

I *really* have to remember to get this issue of Discover!

-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: jgacker@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker)
Subject: Re: In case Bales has convinced you of his honesty
Organization: Goddard Space Flight Center
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 14:10:40 GMT

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

: But there is another fundamental difference, which is that there is
: no concept of cross-checking when we speculate about abiogenesis.  And
: it is the qestion of cross-checking that is so crucial to the issue of
: radio-dating.    Mr Bales can hem and haw all he likes, and he can
: point out all the possible difficulties he likes, but he can't explain
: away the existing mass of data on radio-dating unless he can do better
: than "could produce wrong results".   "It might be wrong" gets you off 
: the hook with one set of data, not with many.

	SECONDED!  I was paging through "Tracers in the Sea" by Wallace
S. Broecker -- one of my grad school texts -- and he showed how
sedimentation rates in two separate cores were determined by three
independent radioisotope dating methods.  And they all agreed!  Imagine
that!
	That's the whole crux of Bales' arguments:

	If A may be wrong, then B, C, D, and E may be wrong for the
same reason A may be wrong.
	Whereas in science the supposition goes:

	If A may be wrong, we'll come up with methods B, C, D,  and E
which are unlikely to be wrong for the same reason A may be wrong, and
then if B, C, D, and E give the same result as A, A is probably right.

	I wonder if the ICR gives a class titled "Improper Scientific
Refutation"?  If they have a class-by-mail, Bales would've gotten an
A (and a B, C, D, and F, too!)

	Jim Acker
	jgacker@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov



: 
: So I have to say that this appears to be nothing more than another of 
: Mr Bales' attempts to muddy the water.
: 
: 
: Hey, I'm not complaining, you know.   If Mr Bales ever did answer a
: question in a straightforward way, it would shake the foundations of
: my world.   So the current situation is quite acceptable.
: 
: jon.
From: onar@hsr.no (Onar Aam)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Cosmos without Gravitation
Date: 31 Dec 92 07:03:44 GMT
Organization: Rogaland University Centre

>In article <1992Dec29.143703.7029@hsr.no> onar@hsr.no (Onar Aam) writes:
>}>13.  If planets and satellites were once molten masses...they would not have been
>}>able to
>}>obtain spherical form, especially those which do not rotate, as Mercury or the 
>}>moon (with
>}^^^^^
>}>respect to its primary)
>}
>}
>}That is simply not true. The moon is rotating (ever heard of earth rise?)
>}although only slightly. 
>
>wobbles, not rotate.  If it rotated, 100% would (eventually) become visable.
>It doesn't.
>
>ref "earthrise".  No, I haven't.  Reference, please.


Sorry! My fault! Earthrise is of course not caused by rotation but rather more an
effect called liberation. This allows us to see about 60% of the moon from earth.

The moon rotates but only ever so slightly that it is barely noticable.



Onar.
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: Cosmos without Gravitation
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Distribution: world,public
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 19:48:19 GMT

In article <1992Dec29.181629.14481@nmsu.edu> sdoe@nmsu.edu (Stephen Doe) writes:
}In article <1992Dec29.164826.5044@linus.mitre.org> m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
}>In article <1992Dec29.143703.7029@hsr.no> onar@hsr.no (Onar Aam) writes:
}>}>13.  If planets and satellites were once molten masses...they would not have been
}>}>able to
}>}>obtain spherical form, especially those which do not rotate, as Mercury or the 
}>}>moon (with
}>}^^^^^
}>}>respect to its primary)
}>}
}>}
}>}That is simply not true. The moon is rotating (ever heard of earth rise?)
}>}although only slightly. 
}>
}>wobbles, not rotate.  If it rotated, 100% would (eventually) become visable.
}>It doesn't.
}
}The moon does rotate, but the period of rotation equals the period of
}revolution about the Earth--*that's* why the same side of the moon is
}always facing us.  This is due to our tidal interaction with the moon.
}If the Earth-moon system lasts long enough, someday the Earth will be
}tidally locked to the moon (i. e., always present the same side.)

Read, please: "(with respect to its primary)
Naturally, it does wrt sol.

Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: Uniformity:  miniscule cause and monstrous effect
Keywords: Astrologers v. Velikovsky???
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 18:14:34 GMT

In article <1992Dec22.121224@cozy.Prime.COM> dwolff@res-c4.Prime.COM (David Wolff) writes:
}In article <179@fedfil.UUCP>, news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
}> There is no 350 lb creature which eats leaves and low value food which comes
}> remotely close to being as strong or having anything like the lifting abilities
}> which Kaz has.  Candidates would include hogs, and certain members of the
}> goat and deer families, possibly.  Put a 1000 lb weight on top of any such
}> creature and watch what happens.
}
}Gorillas.

Dang.  There you go, confusing Ted with facts.  If it isn't a myth,
it doesn't matter.

Just for fun, care to let Kaz and a gorilla wrestle?
From: news@fedfil.UUCP (news)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Cosmos without Gravitation
Date: 3 Jan 93 13:44:59 GMT
Followup-To: talk.origins
Organization: HTE

In article <btd.725965254@pv7440.vincent.iastate.edu>, btd@iastate.edu (Benjamin T Dehner) writes:

^	Several times I have requested models/calculations from Mr. Holden,
^with no result.  As a specific example, I have asked for model atmospheres
^of Venus which SHOW that pure solar energy cannot give the observed tempera-
^ture profile.  As we are only now begining to understand global atmospheric
^dynamics, I find it unlikely that this request will ever be answered.

In other words, since I cannot provide for Venus what nobody else can even 
provide for this planet, which is closer and easier to study, everything
else I might have to say regarding Venus is to be discounted.

Does it strike you as strange that nobody on the other side would be willing
to play this game by that set of rules?



-- 
Ted Holden
HTE

Newsgroups: talk.origins,sci.astro,sci.physics
From: rh@smds.com (Richard Harter)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Men Evolved from Women
Date: 22 Dec 92 08:51:04 GMT
Reply-To: rh@ishmael.UUCP (Richard Harter)
Organization: Software Maintenance & Development Systems, Inc.

In article <eFcZVB1w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
>kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:

>> > > To make a very long story very very short:  the primates were here
>> > > before us, and they created us in their image.  

>> > No. Biologically, humans are primates, so the statement that primates
>> > were here before humans is logically invalid.

>>   Sorry Kalki, you have that backwards.  Let me rephrase the comment above:
>>       Planes were around before jets.

>No, this statement is invalid unless you specify what kind of planes.
>The author didn't do that (at least not in the fragmented post I saw).

>You can't say "class precedes element of class." You can only say
>"element A precedes element B."

My apologies sir, but you seem to be in error.  "Humans" in this context
is a class as are "primates"; similarly "planes" and "jets" are classes,
i.e. the class of all things that are classified as planes, the class
of all things that are classified as jets, and so on.  The class, humans,
is a sub class of the class, primates.  The class, jets, is a subclass of
the class, planes.

The statement "planes were around before jets" is a compact way of saying
that "there are members of the class 'planes' that were in existence 
before any member of the class 'jets'".  The claim ".. humans are primates,
so the statement that primates were here before humans is logically invalid" 
is in error.  I gather that the basis for it is the assumption that "humans"
are an element of the class "primates".

Now I would think that anyone who has grasped the notion of element and
class would recognize that popular usage conflates the notion of subclass
and element.  Specifically, either "humans" is a subclass of the class
"primates" or it is an element.  If it is an element then no human is
a primate -- only the class "humans" is a primate.  However it is quite
clear that in normal usage I and my fellow humans are primates -- i.e.
"humans" denotes a subclass of the class primates.  [Whether the Kalki
postings were created by a primate, let alone a human, is open to
question -- one wonders about the possibility that they are the product
of a particularly clever computer program.]

>In any case, humans have been around since the creation of the planet,
>as long as any other life form on earth. The whole argument is bogus
>anyway. (Go ahead, jump on it! :-))

Why?  It's simply another naked assertion, with out supporting evidence,
that is inconsistent with the available evidence.  There is nothing
special about that.
-- 
Richard Harter: SMDS Inc.  Net address: rh@smds.com Phone: 508-369-7398 
US Mail: SMDS Inc., PO Box 555, Concord MA 01742.    Fax: 508-369-8272
In the fields of Hell where the grass grows high
Are the graves of dreams allowed to die.
From: arandia@panix.com (Joel Arandia)
Subject: Protocells,self-replicating proteins
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 07:50:23 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC

I read something about a Sidney Fox who did experiments on amino acids in 
the late '70s.  He found that amino acids do not link randomly but in 
specific sequences.  These polymers, when added to water, become 
self-replicating proteins.  Supposedly, they can be considered alive.
I was wondering if anyone had the recipe lying around.  I was thinking that
these things might make good pets.

joel d. arandia
ps-actually, I just want the recipe to satisfy my own curiousity.  Can I make
life in my bathtub?