HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Plant Death before the Fall (Gall Bladders Anyone?)
Date: 13 Oct 92 01:39:59 GMT
Reply-To: swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <Bvw345.41E@well.sf.ca.us> keithd@well.sf.ca.us (Keith Doyle) writes:
|
|I presume now that we have determined that felines
|won't survive as vegetarians, that in the 10,000 years since
|they were created, they must have evolved from vegetarians
|(before the Fall) to the carnivores they are today.  Can
|anyone postulate what differences would have had to have
|evolved in that period of time?

You want the *full* list, or just the abbreviated one :-)
[The full list includes various details of biochemistry, metabolism,
and physiology that I cannot even remember without looking them up].

The *short* list:
	1.  Those teeth.  (Ever watch a sick cat *try* to eat grass?
	    they spend a *lot* of effort for almost no ingestion).

	2. The small intestine would have to have been about 25-30% longer.

	3. The appendix would have to have been a caecum.

	4. The above two items would require a large gut area.
	   [can you say 'fat cat'].

	5. The brain wiring that makes a cat instinctively eat meat
	   could not have been present.

Ummm, well, that will do for a start.

|Also, aren't there some species whose young are born inside
|the body of one of the parents, and who eat their way out
|or something like that, implying that they too, may have
|had to go through a bit of evolution after the Fall to get
|to such a state.

Yep, there are several such.  Also species of *parasite* that are specialized
to take over a host's body as they grow from egg to pupa.  [This one is
*really* gross - even to a trained biologist].
-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
From: David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: "Really Old Jewish Literature"
Date: 8 Oct 92 15:02:00 GMT
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Oct  1 1992

Tag: news (news@fedfil.UUCP (Ted Holden))
And: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
 
WV> "Hey Ted, a question: Since cave paintings exist from before
WV> the change in the felt effect of gravity (a la your galloping
WV> elephants), why aren't there any cave paintings of dinosaurs?
 
TH> "Really old Jewish literature describes a number of really big
TH> animals, including one or two which Noah was supposed to have
TH> tied down on the decks of the ark because they would not fit
TH> in any of the cages. These are described as being very rare,
TH> however, sort of like the California condor now. Then you have
TH> to ask yourself, what kind of a guy would live in a cave (aside
TH> from astronomers). What would somebody like that know about
TH> rare animals?"
 
Really old Jewish literature? You mean Hebrews? Or Sumerian?
 
The really old Jewish literature also explains that Lilith was
the first Woman, and that She was present as an observer when
God Jehovah created Adam, and also observed when God took a saw
and cut Adam in two, creating Eve. And Really Old Jews (tm) used
to engrave Her symbol / face on the bottoms of baby dishes for
protection from infant death. There are even ancient poems that
say that Lilith is responsible for when an infant smiles in
sleep--- She is caressing the hair on the back of the infant's
head.
 
Of course when She couldn't take the abuse any more She told God
to to fuck himself (or his brain-dead Adam) and She split to the
Read Sea. My kind of Goddess.
 
Ancient Jews said it, so it MUST be true!
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: gmartin@zia.aoc.nrao.edu (George Martin)
Subject: Re: Holden and the C programming language
Organization: NRAO
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 92 02:59:26 GMT

In article <67@fedfil.UUCP> news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
>In article <718507718@sheol.UUCP>, throopw@sheol.UUCP (Wayne Throop) writes:
>
>or rather brings nit-picking to a new level:
>
>
>> 
>> First of all, the program as posted is not ANSI conforming.  Nor is it a
                                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> legal K&R C program.  
>
>K&R C compilers, free with UNIX, are a classic example of getting what
>you pay for in life.  
>Ted Holden
>HTE
>
Ted,

Well Sun makes you pay for a C compiler these days.  I paid for the C
compiler I use on my Mac.  Your program as posted was not conforming
for these compilers either.  What is your "answer" for Wayne's statement
that your program is not ANSI conforming either?

You wonder why people don't take you seriously?  Your reply above is
just one example.

BTW:
Just in case you doubt my assertion that Sun requires you to pay
for the C compiler, a BSD like operating system going towards ATT
Unix, I will be glad to quote an e-mail message from my boss this
week to everyone who has a workstation asking who uses the C
compiler.
-- 
George Martin
Systems Analyst                     NRAO/VLA                  Socorro NM
Internet: gmartin@something.aoc.nrao.edu
"Skating away on the thin ice of the new day."  (Ian Anderson)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: markwc@barney.esl.com (Mark Christiansen)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Applauses to Ted
Date: 12 Oct 92 05:33:38 GMT
Organization: ESL Inc., Sunnyvale, CA

In article <ksand-111092153247@wintermute.apple.com>
ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>
>In article <1992Oct9.221500.1@eagle.wesleyan.edu>
>kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu wrote:

>>No, in fact it makes it easer, because the Earth's surface was
>>smoother then, so the Flood wouldn't have to cover such a depth;
>>then when the Earth contracted its surface assumed a bumpier form
>>and the water went into the lower parts, what are now the oceans.

>The hollow Earth would also explain where all the water disappeared.
>Down there! I guess we still have all the water under our feet. And
>that also increased the gravity force.

>Hepp, I think I could become a pretty good creation scientist...

Why does the Earth need to be hollow to be less dense?

Mark
-- 
   No idea is so outlandish that it should not be considered with a
searching but at the same time with a steady eye.
   -- Winston Churchill
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: Questions for Evolutionists
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 18:32:40 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.104623.203014@uctvax.uct.ac.za>, watkins@uctvax.uct.ac.za
writes:
> It is because of THIS that I posted my original objection for using
> Wellhausen's JEPD theory to refute Genesis:1-3. My objection still stands.

  1) Wellhausen's theory has nothing to do with the objections presented to
refute Gen 1-3.  The point raised would have been valid if NOBODY had EVER made
ANY claims.  There are, without doubt, two different voices in these passages. 
Even a cursory view of the language would make that clear.  Even in English it
is obvious that there are two creation stories.  Read the passages.

  2) It does not matter what the original claims were based on, enough evidence
exists for the separate manuscripts without need for the original reasons behind
the hypothesis.  You cannot disprove something by explaining the original
problems, you have to explain ALL evidence.  This has not been done.

>Apart from subjective interpretations relating to style of authorship, there
is
>NO CONCRETE EVIDENCE (eg archaeological finds of seperate manuscripts) for
>separating the two creation accounts in Gen:1-2, nor for considering Gen 2 to
>be a composite of a J and an E source. There has been alot of dicussion in
t.o.
>on whether Gen1+2 have two seperate sources and thus are two different
creation
>accounts or have one source and thus represent two different perspectives of
>the same account. This discussion will never be resolved until the debators
>recognise that they are operating from different paradigms - REFLECTING THE
>PARADIGM-SHIFT involved in Wellhausen's JEPD theory. As a scientist I tend to
>ask for objective evidence, and I must conclude that AS FAR AS Gen:1-3 GOES,
>the evidence is stronger for considering them as one source. How one
>interperates this in terms of the evolutionary theory is an entirely different
>matter! :-)

  What paradigm-shift is it that caused the word for "God" to change?  Give any
evidence that these should be considered one source.  Note that lack of counter
evidence is NOT evidence.  (Nobody has presented evidence that pickle people do
not inhabit the moon by examining the reflected spectra, so there is evidence
for pickle people on the moon)

 |  __L__   *******************************
-|-  ___    * Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub   *
 |  | o |   * kv07@iastate.edu            *
 |/ `---'   * Iowa State University       *
/|   ___    * Math Department             *
 |  |___|   * 400 Carver Hall             *
 |  |___|   * Ames, IA  50011             *
 J  _____   *******************************
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: tlode@nyx.cs.du.edu (trygve lode)
Subject: Re: Applauses to Ted
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix @ U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 92 21:23:01 GMT

(Hmmmm...didn't look like this got out last time--let's try again.) 

In article <1992Oct8.162854.1281@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> amorgan@csd-d-5.Stanford.EDU (Crunchy Frog) writes:
>In article <544-0T_@engin.umich.edu> 
>  ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles) writes:
>
>.. Large Earth, reduced gravity.
>
>> Um... actually, that won't work. For a sphere (which Earth is, at least
>>close enough for these purposes) the g outside the sphere depends only
>>on the mass of the sphere, whether or not the sphere is hollow. 
>
>Right, but wrong.  Whilest the gravity at a distance n away from the center
>of either sphere will be the same, because the big Earth has a larger
>radius the *surface* gravity of the expanded Earth will be less than the
>*surface* gravity of the normal Earth.
>
>All we need is an Earth with twice the radius and the surface gravity
>is only 25% of what it is now.  Are you listening Ted?

If memory serves (and according to the nutritional information label, it
says that it serves 4), this very theory was proposed on t.o. a year or
two ago under the name "The Once Hollow Earth Theory."  Alas, I forget
the author of this particular theory, but he did a fine job of following
up Ted's posts and showing how his points could be used with equal 
efficacy to support his own theory (which he believed with every bit as
much fervor as I believe in electromagnetic fish reducing the felt effect
of water).

Trygve
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Plant Death before the Fall (Gall Bladders Anyone?)
Date: 15 Oct 1992 20:23:09 GMT
Organization: sgi
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <IerPAny00Vop43WXcl@andrew.cmu.edu>, "Robert J. Knapp" <rk3h+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
|> 
|> Please explain why every morning my back porch is covered with mouse
|> guts.  Cats do eat small animals, it's part of their "circuitry," they
|> will however leave a gift of the digistive system for their owners in
|> exchange for the food and attention the cats recieve.

Desmond Morris has a slightly different version of this.   
He claims that what cats are up to is teaching the humans 
they own how to hunt.   "See this small animal?  Well, 
you can do that too, if you try".

Personally, I don't know how anyone can tell what an
animal is really up to.   Doubly so for cats.

jon.
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: rowe@pender.ee.upenn.edu (Mickey Rowe)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Friesen on elastics and sauropod necks
Date: 15 Oct 92 23:49:13 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <1992Oct15.194538.24734@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
     tlode@nyx.cs.du.edu (trygve lode) writes:

>Ted, Ted, Ted, you really ought to at least gain a nodding familliarity 
>with a subject...

>Next up, you might want to consider learning about such concepts as
>leverage and kinesiology--for the former, consider especially the
>structural tradeoffs between speed and force, and for the latter, you
>might want to note the way the rectus femoris works against the gluteus
>maximus and the biceps femoris fights the quadriceps throughout the
>performance of the squat.  Humans are just not designed with performing
>squats in mind.

I hope that this wasn't something that was obvious to everyone who
bothers to read Ted's posts, but after a giving it a little bit of
thought I think I figured out what one of Ted's problems is with
leverage.  You're not going to get anywhere with the above sort of
argument, because Ted's not yet prepared to understand it.

You see when Ted said that looking at pictures of humans (particularly
Kazmeier) and reconstructed sauropods made him think that leverage
would favor humans, he evidenced that he hasn't a clue as to what
people are telling him about the subject.  In my model of Ted's
thinking, Ted only understands leverage in terms of "you want to get
under a weight in order to lift it".  I really don't think it's
occurred to Ted that what we're trying to tell him about leverage has
to do with the distance between a muscle's insertion site, and the
joint which that muscle rotates.  Ted, the leverage that people are
talking about refers to something internal to the lifter, not the
placement of the load on the limb.

If we can get him to understand what leverage we're talking about,
then maybe we can get him to understand why it favored the sauropods.
Then maybe we can get him to understand that even the largest of them
could walk in 1 g.  Then maybe...  Oh, who am I trying to kid?

>Trygve

Mickey Rowe     (rowe@pender.ee.upenn.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: Teemu Makinen
Subject: Re: pi=3 (was Re: Abuse By t.o Regulars
Organization: Finnish Academic and Research Network Project - FUNET
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 92 09:32:22 GMT

In article <1992Oct16.080409.26564@hsr.no> frank@hsr.no (Frank A Stevenson)
writes:
>	But if you want this text to remain absolutely true and you're willing to
>take a far fetched explanation this is how to picture the vessel. The outer
>diametre could be 10 and the inner circumference could then be 30. From here I
>leave it as an exercise to the reader to calculate the thickness of the
vessels
>rim.

You can't make a measurement of type length and have an exact result. The
length of a macroscopic object becomes a fuzzy concept at the latest in the
atomic scale. The physicists have to accept that all the other measuring events
than counting a simple integer have some amount of error in the results. So, a
said vessel can't have *exactly* the said dimensions (unless the length was a
macroscopically quantized quantity by then).
So it's a question of approximations. Had they written " it's diameter was
*ABOUT* 10 units and circumference *ABOUT* 30 units" so there would be no
problems. But I agree with you, they hardly knew anything about mathematics. If
the said thing is to be interpreted literally, it leads to an impossibility. So
we have to admit that it is only "so and so" careless talk. The Bible is not
100% true if it is only 99.999999999999986187% true.
And Pi is *not* just a ratio.

"An exam in quantum cosmology:
  a) Find a general solution for the quantum wave function of a universe with
given
     initial conditions.
  b) Give at least two examples."

Teemu Makinen  --- teemu.makinen@fmi.fi
From: swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Why is it bad science? Was: Willfully Ignorant
Date: 7 Oct 92 19:53:42 GMT
Reply-To: swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <1992Oct5.194927.19879@spdc.ti.com> achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach) writes:
|
|   Now when you move to areas of biological evolution, my knowledge is not 
|much better than most laymen. But when I read the gross misrepresentation of
|geologic data, of which I was knowledgable, I was flabbergasted. Either these
|people are pathological liars, or they are utterly and totally ignorant of the
|physical sciences. 

Believe me, their biology is *just* as bad.
If it were not for the fact that it fools ignorant people into believing
this bogosity, the stuff they present would actually be *funny*.
[Something along the lines of 'Science Made Stupid"].
-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: onar@hsr.no (Onar Aam)
Subject: Re: Clarification on Microevolution and Macroevolution
Organization: Rogaland University Centre
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 16:18:51 GMT

>I was suggesting that evolutionary change is the accumulation (under 
>selection) of changes (usually one or a few at a time).  Whether those
>changes are point mutations or gene doubling, was not my concern.  I
>don't see why it is necessary to make the distinction that you do between
>the changes.
>
If you regard a geneduplication as a 'small change' then I apologize.


>>A suggestion for all of you who find my explanations on dynamic systems
>>insufficient: use a year or two of your life to study Nonlinear-,
>>Chaotic-,Complex- and Dynamical systems. Then come back and discuss 
>>with me.
>
>
>The onus is on the one explaining to explain in such a fashion that
>his readers can understand.  Telling us to go away until we are
>smart enough to talk to you is likely to be counterproductive and
>doesn't improve communication.
>

Maybe I was a bit irrational, but I was so schocked that the repliers had never
heard about dynamical systems because they are crucial in the understanding of 
life. 


>[more deleted]
>The part deleted seems to be making the point that if you increase
>the number of genes, then the space of possible gene combinations 
>(and therefore the space of possible organisms) increases as well.
>Which, put that way, seems perfectly reasonable. 

Yes, and that is the theoretical limit of genetic diversity, but there is more to
it than that. Dynamic systems are dynamical (oh, really), but they are also to a
certain extent rigid. When, of all possibilities, a path in evolution has been 
'chosen', there are restrictions in the ways this system can change (without
increasing complexity). On further thoughts I do admit that these limits need not
be within a specie. A specie is not THAT rigid a system, but it is still not that
loose, either. Read my 'Further Clarifications' to see examples of the rigidness.
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: kring@efes.physik.uni-kl.de (Thomas Kettenring)
Subject: Re: Methinks it's like a weasel   IMPORTANT !
Organization: FB Physik, Universitaet Kaiserslautern, Germany
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 02:33:24 GMT

In article <BRUCE.92Oct6104558@suprenum.uxb.liv.ac.uk>, bruce@uxb.liv.ac.uk (Bruce Stephens) writes:
>But as far as I'm aware nobody actually believes that life has always
>been here, and certainly Dawkins doesn't.  

Fred Hoyle does.  The stationary-universe and what-was-the-name-again-
I'll-call-it-"life-on-earth-came-from-comets" guy.

--
thomas kettenring, 2 dan, kaiserslautern, germany
...and then the dragon ate the princess and the knight, and he lived happily
ever after.   -- Grandma Addams telling Wednesday a story (paraphrased)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: Uneven felt gravity
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 14:41:19 GMT

In article <66@fedfil.UUCP> news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
}I've no intention of wasting any more of my time writing new responses to your
}bullshit.  In the one similar case on t.o, namely that of Meritt, I've simply
}retained one or two standard posts which, to any reasonable observer, CLEARLY
}show the guy for what he is, and that is what I intend to do with YOU.
}
}I shall simply save this post and repost it to anything further which you
}might have to say on the subject of Rose's Pangaea article.  In my judgement,
}it tells any reasonable person anything and everything he might need to know
}regarding how seriously to take anything which you might have to say.

Heaven forbid that Teddy actually have to think, or do one thing creative.
Appears to be the case that Holden displays the mental ability also
demonstrated by cron or a VERY short shell script (trigger on presence).

Evidence:  The counter-posts do not appear to reflect interim information,
NOR address that which they are claiming to "respond" to, as witnessed by
the inclusion of text not reflected in the original posting yet attributed
to the originator.  This is evidence in support of the "felt effect of
stupidity".

So why pretend to debate with something that cannot learn?
Please note that this is, for this reason, NOT addressed to Holden, nor
is "reply" desired.
From: kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Plant Death before the Fall (Gall Bladders Anyone?)
Date: 15 Oct 92 19:51:01 GMT
Organization: Wesleyan University

In article <1992Oct14.143336.26046@city.cs>, lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun) writes:
> 
> This sort of thing `nature red in tooth and claw', did not
> happen before the Fall. I agree - its really ugly how life
> has been corrupted by Sin.

   No, of course it didn't.  These types of parasitoids had,
of course, been created already, because they were all created
before the Fall, but of course they didn't eat each other then.
Nope.  Not a bit.

   Please, correct me if I'm wrong!

Karl
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Microevolution and Macroevolution
Date: 13 Oct 1992 20:11:46 GMT
Organization: sgi
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <1992Oct13.110752@IASTATE.EDU>, kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:
|> In article <1bd9n8INNprv@fido.asd.sgi.com>, livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon
|> Livesey) writes:
|> > But what is "dynamic range"?   Surely Mr Aan now has to
|> > show us evidence that such a thing as Dynamic Range really
|> > exists, or even better, tell us how it works.
|> 
|>   What I think he is trying to say (please correct me if I'm wrong) is that any
|> given creature can only vary a small amount due to mutation.

Well, that's what they *usually* say, more or less, and the 
explanation you gave that follows is the correct rebuttal to 
the usual claim.  Why shouldn't small changes add up to a
large change.

However, that's not what Mr Aan is saying, exactly.   He's
being a bit more subtle than the usual stuff about "limits"
on mutation.   He's proposing instead that there actually 
have to be two different mechanisms because there are certain
things he calls "bondages" which limit change unless you
change the number of genes in an organism.

In other words, he's not talking about damage, but about
some limit which is related to number of genes.    So I 
am asking, what is this limit, and how is it implemented.

Think of it this way: someone claims that simple dynamic
systems can only go through limited state changes.   They're
simple, right?   And the answer is: no, even simple dynamic
systems can sometimes experience large state changes in 
response to a small increment of input.

jon.
 
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: kring@efes.physik.uni-kl.de (Thomas Kettenring)
Subject: Re: Uneven felt gravity
Organization: FB Physik, Universitaet Kaiserslautern, Germany
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 23:47:05 GMT

In article <Bvs689.1n3@world.std.com>, twalters@world.std.com (Tim Walters) writes:
>In article <1992Oct5.233510.1480@rhrk.uni-kl.de>kring@efes.physik.uni-kl.de (Thomas Kettenring) writes:
>>The genius whose brain spawned this thing was Immanuel Velikovsky, a Swiss
>>psychiatrist. [..]
>
>Did Velikovsky actually suggest all this gravity stuff? I was under
>the impression that it came from a fringe group of his followers, like
>Rose and Ted.

That's what I wanted to say - that they are *his* followers, that *he*
started it.  Sorry if I used the wrong word.

--
thomas kettenring, 2 dan, kaiserslautern, germany
...and then the dragon ate the princess and the knight, and he lived happily
ever after.   -- Grandma Addams telling Wednesday a story (paraphrased)