HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: huston@access.digex.com (Herb Huston)
Subject: Re: Morals, Family and Religion (was worthless comic strips)
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 17:47:17 GMT

In article <esposito.16.717440015@hamlet.uncg.edu> esposito@hamlet.uncg.edu (Andrew Joseph Esposito) writes:
>In article <1992Sep22.105930.23459@access.digex.com> huston@access.digex.com (Herb Huston) writes:
>>From: huston@access.digex.com (Herb Huston)
>>In article <esposito.1.717107730@uncg.edu> esposito@uncg.edu (Andrew Joseph 
>> Esposito) writes:
>>>Skinner, the behavoralist, did some wonderful research with raising 
>>>infants without its mother or the touch of another of its species.  His 
>>>results are not surprising, but they are disturbing to say the least -- if 
>>>you are an animal rights activist, you might be offended.  (wonderful 
>>>above is in an intelectual sence -- I think the experiments were 
>>>downright mean)
>>Are you sure about who conducted the experiments?  What you are describing
>>sounds like experiments carried out by Harry Harlow on rhesus monkeys back
>>in the 1950s.
>
>That was from memory.  Thinking about it, I think I got Skinner's pigeons 
>and Harlow's monkeys mixed up.  Sorry about that.  I'm a Business major, not 
>a social scientist.

No problem; it's just that Harlow's experiments are considered "classics."
If you'd like to read some of his own accounts, check "Love in Infant 
Monkeys" in _Scientific American_ (Vol. 200, No. 6) for June 1959 and
"Social Deprivation in Monkeys" (with Margarent K. Harlow) in _Scientific
American_ (Vol. 207, No. 5) for November 1962.

By the way, I'm a computer programmer, not a primatologist.

-- Herb Huston
From: adpeters@sunflower.bio.indiana.edu (Andy Peters)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: New Evidence for Creation! NOT!!
Date: 1 Oct 92 20:22:40 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Program in Evolution, Ecology, and Behavior, Indiana University

In article <1992Oct1.140816@IASTATE.EDU> danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock) writes:
>   What an incredible example of creationist reasoning:
>
>   (I) Take information out of context,
>
>   (II) Using two data points,
>
>   (III) Select a simple model without justifying it, 
>
>   (IV) and "prove" something with the above garbage while ignoring
>        10^12 _facts_ that show the statement proved to be wrong in
>        any case.

I was going under the assumption that the original post was a joke.
PLEASE, ran@cbnews.cb.att.com, tell me I was right.

>   Or did you just forget the smilies?

To me, the joke was so obvious that smilies were unnecessary. 
(God, I hope I was right)

>Dan

-- 
* Andy Peters                     * "Slugs are small and portable    *From
* Program in Evolution,           * Just stuff 'em up your nose      *"Slugs,"
*      Ecology, and Behavior      * They'll fit beneath your armpits *by David
* Indiana University, Bloomington * Or right between your toes"      *Greenberg
From: hamilton@hydra.cs.gmr.com (William E. Hamilton CS50 CS/50)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Progressive Creationism Part 6
Date: 5 Oct 92 13:40:13 GMT
Reply-To: hamilton@gmr.com (William E. Hamilton CS50 CS/50)
Organization: GM Research Labs, Warren, MI

Thanks, Jim, for typing in the summary of Boice's commentary on Genesis.
I know how much work it is - after transcribing the Gish/Ross interview
from Focus on the Family.
Several reactions (more may follow as I think of more):

1.  Your astonishment that a strict inerrantist would give such credence
to anthropological findings:

I agree, but perhaps that's a sign of progress. He seems to have recognized
that anthropologists can find and date ancient remains, and those
remains (including artifacts like tools) will tell us something about
what these creatures were like physically and intellectually. But
do manlike form, use of tools, living in communities, etc. necessarily
identify the same creature that the Bible also calls man? The
insistence on separate creation of each manlike predecessor of man 
is probably just an artifact of the inerrantist tradition. I once
suggested to a friend that God could well have brought about the 
diversity of life by stepping in from time to time and adjusting
both environment and genetic code to get what He wanted. My friend
got red in the face and retorted, "But we know He didn't do that," but was 
not able to explain to me *why* we know. I think it's a "slippery
slope" kind of fear. It would be interesting
to see how Boice's thinking has developed since the book was
published. What is the pub date, BTW? It would be refreshing to see
an inerrantist admit that the Bible is trustworthy when used as
intended - as a guide to faith and practice by believers. 

2.  The assertions found here and there about how evolution is ruled out:

Politics. The young-earth view is incredibly powerful in conservative 
Christianity. Even a person of Boice's stature could be damaged by
openly opposing it. It seems to me that once you allow progressive
creation or the day-age theory (which is Young's position), then you've
agreed that the geologists' time scale is correct, that different
sorts of creatures appeared at different times, and that later
creatures seem to have been developed using characteristics of earlier
creatures as as a starting point, 
possibly in response to changing environmental
conditions.  Now the question is just *how* did these changes occur, and
it seems to me that Boice is where the assertion that God influenced the 
genetic development of life by mutations, genetic drift and adjusting
environmental conditions becomes quite plausible. He just doesn't
dare come out and admit it - yet.

3.  The mention of the Paluxy "mantracks":

Proves that even scholars like Boice sometimes fall victim to the
credulity which conservative Christians are too prone to. No excuse.
He should have checked his information. 

Bill Hamilton
GM Research and Environmental Staff
From: markwc@barney.esl.com (Mark Christiansen)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Question for Creationists
Date: 26 Sep 92 11:25:38 GMT
Organization: ESL Inc., Sunnyvale, CA

In article <qa8i9bc@zola.esd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.esd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
>In article <1453@esl.ESL.COM>, markwc@barney.esl.com (Mark Christiansen) writes:
>|> >In article <1433@esl.ESL.COM>
>|> >markwc@barney.esl.com (Mark Christiansen) writes:
>|> 
>|> >> Circular arguments exist in science as well:
>|> >> "We know this because scientific writings tell us so, and we 
>|> >> know that scientific writings are correct because the scientists 
>|> >> tell us so through their writings."
>|>
>|> ... a majority of people have only
>|> read *about* science and have no knowledge at all of what scientific
>|> research is.  They must accept on faith what they are told by
>|> scientists.
>
>How does the ignorance and gullibility of a section of the population
>become part of the content of Science?   Did it ever occur to you
>that perhaps these people are *aware* that they don't know much
>about Science, and that what they really do is hold very tentative 
>opinions which don't resemble religious faith much or at all?
>

The statement in quotes was a rephrasing of a previous statement made
in a prior posting that said something to the effect: the circular
argument exists among many religious people that "we know that
religious writings are correct because our religious leaders tell us
so and the writings tell us so."  I apologize for giving the
impression that circular arguments exist in science.  What I should
have made clear is that circular arguments about science exist among
many people.

Faith begins with tentative opinions and what religious people who
make the quoted statement in the previous paragraph have is tentative
opinions.  To increase that faith (in science or religion) requires
some study and experimentation with basic concepts.

Mark



-- 
   We can lick gravity, but sometimes the paperwork is overwhelming.
   -- Wernher von Braun
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: a brief tirade
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 23:14:22 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.123714.25854@city.cs>, lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun)
writes:
> In article <96870@bu.edu> colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby) writes:
> >In article <1992Sep23.192500.25102@nsisrv.gsfc.nasa.gov> jgacker@neptune
(James G. Acker) writes:
> >
> >>	Hey Chris -- 
> >
> >Hi Jim. 
> >
> >>	At some point, I'll summarize "Progressive Creationism" in
> >>my "Creation" book and I'll call it a "Theory of Creation". 
> >>	 My first impression:
> >>Is that it's adaptable enough to cope with anything science discovers, and
> >>very non-specific. 
> >
> >Could I ask a serious question? What good is a theory that is adaptable
> >enough to cope with anything science discovers? 
> 
> Are you by any chance referring to the ever changing theory of
> evolution?

  Key word there: changing.  Rather than explain away the data the theory is
altered to encompass the new data.  Would you change your interpretation of the
Bible to fit the data?  Or would you find some reason to ignore the data?

 |  __L__   *******************************
-|-  ___    * Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub   *
 |  | o |   * kv07@iastate.edu            *
 |/ `---'   * Iowa State University       *
/|   ___    * Math Department             *
 |  |___|   * 400 Carver Hall             *
 |  |___|   * Ames, IA  50011             *
 J  _____   *******************************
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Words to Think by
Date: 1 Oct 92 22:41:34 GMT
Organization: animal -- coelomate -- deuterostome

In article <BvGIzD.F0H@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> adpeters@sunflower.bio.indiana.edu (Andy Peters) writes:

>In the same chapter (or maybe the second), Burke tells about St.
>Augustine (I think), who made a list of things even God couldn't
>do.  Among them was, "make the interior angles of a triangle sum to 
>other than 180 degrees."  I liked that.

What if you drew the triangle on a curved surface (such as a sphere)?
The sum of the angles would be less than 180 but I'm not sure if you
could still call the three sided figure a triangle. Just curious,
anyone knee deep in geometry trivia out there?

>* Andy Peters                     * "Slugs are small and portable    *From

Chris Colby 	---	 email: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu	---
"'My boy,' he said, 'you are descended from a long line of determined,
resourceful, microscopic tadpoles--champions every one.'"
 	--Kurt Vonnegut from "Galapagos"

Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: kring@efes.physik.uni-kl.de (Thomas Kettenring)
Subject: Re: a brief tirade
Organization: FB Physik, Universitaet Kaiserslautern, Germany
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 00:57:50 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.123714.25854@city.cs>, lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun) writes:
>In article <96870@bu.edu>colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep23.192500.25102@nsisrv.gsfc.nasa.gov>jgacker@neptune (James G. Acker) writes:
>>>	At some point, I'll summarize "Progressive Creationism" in
>>>my "Creation" book and I'll call it a "Theory of Creation". 
>>>	 My first impression:
>>>Is that it's adaptable enough to cope with anything science discovers, and
>>>very non-specific. 
>>
>>Could I ask a serious question? What good is a theory that is adaptable
>>enough to cope with anything science discovers? 
>
>Are you by any chance referring to the ever changing theory of
>evolution?

We should make that more clear.
What good is a theory that is adaptable enough to cope with REALLY anything
science can EVER BE IMAGINED TO discover?

Evolution up to now could be adapted to all the data because it is close to the
truth, not - like creation - because it is close to everything you can think of
(including truth).
A theory that is basically right but not quite correct in detail is expected
to adapt to all data (instead of disappearing totally or ignoring the data).

To put it another way:  Evolution hasn't been falsified yet because the data
agree with it.
Creationism hasn't been falsified because it has no relation at all to the data;
it is in principle not falsifiable.  New data can be added to the creationist
world view with no effort, no matter what the data are; just add "that's the
way God did it."

-- 

thomas kettenring, 2 dan, kaiserslautern, germany
Science is like democracy - it's not perfect, but it's the best thing available.
From: lking@athena.mit.edu (Loren King)
Subject: Re: New Evidence for Creation!
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 18:47:11 GMT


In article <1992Oct1.135043.23660@cbnews.cb.att.com>, ran@cbnews.cb.att.com
(Robert A. Neinast) writes:

|> 
|> A new scientific study has now given us the data to show that the
|> creation certainly occurred after 33,000 BC and strong evidence
|> shows that it probably occurred in 5386 BC.
|> 
|> In the "Journal of the American Medical Association", Philip Mackowiak has
|> recently measured the average human body temperature (he's at the University
|> of Maryland).  His result is 98.2 degrees F.  There is significance to these
|> new findings, since the 1868 study of Carl Wunderlich showed that,
|> in humans, the average body temperature at that time was 98.6 degrees F.  He
|> collected the data using OVER ONE MILLION PEOPLE.  This pretty well points
|> to the fact that, just as maximum lifespan of humans has been declining
|> since the Fall (c.g. Methuselah--Gen 5:27), so has average body temperature.
|> 
|> A least-squares fit to this data yields the following precise equation
|> for body temperate vs. time:
|> 
|> 	Temperature = -0.0032258064 * Year + 104.6258063552   .
|> 
|> Surely, body temperature could never have been above the boiling
|> point of water.  This equation shows that body temperature would
|> of been 212 degrees in 33286 BC, so it is clear that the creation must
|> of occurred after that date.  We can better pin down the date
|> for creation by considering the perfection of God.  What better
|> evidence of the flawlessness of his Plan than to create humans with
|> body temperature exactly midway between the boiling and freezing
|> points of water: 122 degrees F.  The above equation shows that
|> this occurred in 5386 BC, in remarkable agreement with other estimates
|> for the time of the Fall.
|> 
|> Maybe this will finally silence the unbelievers.
|> 
|> -- 
|>                                                                   _
|> ". . . and shun the frumious Bandersnatch."                 Nipetlahuini.
|> Robert Neinast (ran@cblpo.att.com)
|> AT&T-Bell Labs


 This is pure genius!!!!  But it is a joke, right?  Sorry, but it's so hard to
tell with this group! I hope its not serious, because it really is an amazing
parody of the kind of reasoning in Creationist camps.

 Just in case it's not a joke, I'll point out one choice muck-up with the
linear model presented: although "over one million people" were used to
assemble average body temps for 1992, I assume, and 1968, these results
are cross-sectional, while your model is a time series.

 Do you see?  Your time-series model predicts an equation for thousands
of years, but actually only has two data points for the dependent variable
with which to actually test the model, 1968 and 1992.  Hardly very "precise"!

 First lesson in deceptive statistics: if your N stinks, don't call it
a model ... call it a phone-in survey!!!


_____________

Loren King
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
From: news@fedfil.UUCP (news)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Friesen on elastics and sauropod necks
Date: 5 Oct 92 01:05:07 GMT
Organization: HTE

In article <1992Oct3.153131@IASTATE.EDU>, kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:
 
>   Hey Ted, a question:
 
>   Since cave paintings exist from before the change in the felt effect of
> gravity (a la your galloping elephants), why aren't there any cave paintings of
> dinosaurs?  


Really old Jewish literature describes a number of really big animals, including
one or two which Noah was supposed to have tied down on the decks of the ark 
because they would not fit in any of the cages.  These are described as 
being very rare, however, sort of like the California condor now.  

Then you have to ask yourself, what kind of a guy would live in a cave (aside
from astronomers).  What would somebody like that know about rare animals?


-- 
Ted Holden
HTE
From: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Why is it bad science?
Date: 28 Sep 92 18:50:47 GMT
Reply-To: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Organization: Iowa State University

In article <b1Ss03tJ8eTL00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com>, jloucks@uts.amdahl.com (Jim
Loucks) writes:
> livesey@solntze.esd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
> [issues that I was not referring to deleted]
> 
>>  It is not conspiratorial to say that someone is doing bad 
>>science if you can show that what they are doing *is* bad science 
>>or no science at all.
> 
> This is my issue. Although I am not a scientist and cannot defend
> the highly technical creation science issues, it would help the issue
> if it was explained WHY creation science is bad science or no science
> at all. Some have sent me mail saying this is why they stop reading t.o.

   Jim, this is the kind of post that makes me question your honesty or good
sense (not both).  I predicted months ago that you couldn't find a Theory of
Creation; I was right, you plumb gave up a month or so ago.  This fact alone
gives the explaination you request above.

   In order to do good science you have to have a careful, logical explaination
of what you think is going on.  This explaination has to tie into the existing
observations and, if possible, make predictions that later are found to be
substantially correct.  This explaination should also imply tests of it's own
correctness.  The Theory of Evolution does this for large segments of biology.

   The is ABSOLUTELY NO SCIENTIFIC THEORY OF CREATION.  Without a foundational
theory, creation science remains a bunch of petty carping about the details of
other types of science and is hence, on those grounds alone, garbage.

   Also, it is the case that the "highly technical details" you mention above
are frequently found to be fudged, taken out of context (borrowing incompatable
data points from multiple papers), or just plain lies (the usual lie is to
claim that "special creation" is a neccesary conclusion of an observation while
keeping very quiet about other perfectly good explainations that make testable
predictions).

   It bothers me that you "can't discuss" the "technical details" after months
of demonstrations by the regulars that the "technical details" are a smoking
gun; Creation science is crap because it bends it's technical details to prove
what it want rather than accepting God's own Truth as Revealed in His Creation
via the Reason He Gave Us.

   Were I religious, I would consider creation science one of Satan's most
obnoxious creations.  It helps people to ignore and missapprehend the universe;
Gods greatest testament to his glory: in my book a 10,000,000,000 year old
testament outranks a 3-4,000 year old one on grounds of seniority alone :).

Dan
Danwell@IASTATE.EDU
From: alanf@tekig6.PEN.TEK.COM (Alan M Feuerbacher)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Darwinism is dead !
Date: 5 Oct 92 18:55:37 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <1992Oct3.161623@IASTATE.EDU> kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:
>In article <7162@tekig7.PEN.TEK.COM>, alanf@tekig6.PEN.TEK.COM (Alan M
>Feuerbacher) writes:
>> For my information:  How do people actually determine what is junk-DNA?
>> I have the impression from reading about fruit-fly experiments, where
>> severely mutated strains of flys reverted to the original form, that at 
>> least some of the DNA has some sort of error-correction function.  True
>> or not?
>
>  Someone mentioned those experiments earlier, but refused when asked for
>references.  Do you have any we can look up?

I wish I could remember, but I think it came from a book with a
creationist viewpoint.  I've read about fifty books on evolution,
creation and evolution vs. creation this last year, so I'm a little
foggy about where some random bits of memory come from.  I was hoping
someone on t.o had heard of this, and could comment critically on it.
I don't think the book listed any references, in any case.

> Aslo, do not confuse mutations due to changes in DNA with mutations due to
>misreading of the DNA (ie. siamese twins, etc).

Could you elaborate on this?

Alan Feuerbacher
alanf@atlas.pen.tek.com
From: lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Genesis (was Deja vu all over again)
Date: 29 Sep 92 23:22:00 GMT
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Sep29.114000.26956@access.digex.com>, huston@access.digex.com (Herb Huston) writes...
>In article <1992Sep29.015428.376@microsoft.com> bobsarv@microsoft.com (Bob Sarver) writes:
>>(emc)
>>/The writers of Genesis would have turned in their graves if they knew
>>/how their simple writings meant to convey their world view were being
>>/so sterilized.
>>
>>Please, no more of this crap.  What gives you the right to say what the
>>writers of Genesis would or would not have thought?  Were you there?
>>Did you talk to them?  Did you write the book?
> 
>When I wanted to see the Burgess Shale fossils, I drove to the Smithsonian's
>National Museum of Natural History (they're on your path as you walk from
>the huge elephant whose name is *not* Jumbo to the dinosaurs).  When I wanted
>to see the original manuscript of _Alice In Wonderland, I visited the British
>Museum (I found that its title was _Alice's Adventures Underground_; there
>were other differences).  In which museum can one find the original manuscript
>of Genesis for comparison against present-day editions to guard against copying
>errors and forgery?

Well, none, but we can determine what the originals must have looked like
by comparing different extant manuscripts (for which we can determine
approximate dates by such techniques as radiocarbon dating, for the Dead
Sea Scrolls, or by style of characters and type of materials used), thus
constructing a family tree.  Of course, when evolutionists do the same thing
with fossil morphology, genetic data, and radiometric dating, it doesn't work.

Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: jmeritt@rod.mitre.org (Jim Meritt)
Subject: Direct question for Holden
Organization: Mitre Corporation
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 16:14:51 GMT


You claim to have a unique and totally accurate understanding of various
astronomical, physical, biological, and chemical T/S "events" that differ
from the accepted norm by a substantial degree.  Could you please specify
how you acquired this raw data and your qualifications for evaluating the
material?

Thank you.


-- 
James W. Meritt:  m23364@mwunix.mitre.org - or - jmeritt@rod.mitre.org
The opinions above are mine.  If anyone else wants to share them, fine.
They may say so if they wish. The facts "belong" to noone and simply are.