HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jloucks@uts.amdahl.com (Jim Loucks)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: two questions for Jim Loucks (+digression)
Date: 15 Apr 92 23:04:18 GMT
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby) writes:
>In article <88MZ026Oc9t600@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> jloucks@uts.amdahl.com (Jim Loucks) writes:
>	Jim, you certainly seem willing to spend time and money
>investigating creationist literature. Since you have been partici-
>pating in t.o., have you spent any time examining biology from
>any non-creationist sources? You probably could have checked out an
>intro to biology text or evolutionary biology text for free from
>that library (or if not, certainly the public library would let 
>you.)

Well, I didn't know Sunderland was a creationist when I ordered the
book, neither did I know (nor do I still know, if) he had any 
affiliation with the ICR, the book was just mentioned by a co-worker.
I've considered and probably will purchase Futuyma's book "Evolutionary
Biology." I'd like to get a book on zoology but have no idea what
to get in this area, any suggestions?

>	One more question. I'm a grad student in evolutionary biology.
>Do you think that I am [list of possibilities]

I don't think you fit any of those descriptions, but explaining or
describing my views on that subject would take some time, and this
isn't the proper forum. 

>	Now that I've asked that question, it would be valid of you
>to ask me the same question in return. ....

Boy were you ever off base, not even close. :-) Where I've been,
what I've done, and how I arrived at my current position in life
would take quite some time to explain. I wouldn't trade it for
the world. 

-- 
Jim Loucks           jloucks@uts.amdahl.com 
{apple, pyramid, sun, uunet}!amdahl!jloucks
From: isaak@imagen.com (mark isaak)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Darwin's Enigma
Summary: This posting has undergone editorial changes.
Date: 17 Apr 92 17:32:27 GMT
Organization: imagen

In article <9dbs02b=ce5v00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> jloucks@uts.amdahl.com (Jim Loucks) writes:
>What I find interesting is that all but Patterson made editorial 
>changes prior to making the documents available to be used in textbooks.
>What did they change and why?

Why do you find it so interesting?  When I post articles to the net,
more often than not I make changes to them after typing the original
version.  Some of the changes are to correct grammar and spelling, but
most of them restructure sentences to make (I hope) my ideas clearer.
And I put a lot more thought into what I write than what I say.  If I
had a chance to clarify some of the obtuse things which have come out
of my mouth, I would jump at the chance.  I find it surprising that
Patterson DIDN'T make changes.
-- 
Mark Isaak    imagen!isaak@decwrl.dec.com  or  {decwrl,sun}!imagen!isaak
	       "The color of truth is gray." - Andre Gide
From: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby)
Newsgroups: talk.origins,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Fundamentalism
Date: 7 Apr 92 14:39:49 GMT
Reply-To: colby@bu-bio.UUCP (Chris Colby)
Followup-To: talk.origins
Organization: Biology Dept., Bost

In article <50@devl3.UUCP> root@devl3.UUCP (Super user) writes:

>No one can **prove** or disprove evolution any more than one can **prove**
>or disprove creation.  There is no empirical **proof** of either, and no one
>has ever talked to the individuals who were there to observe, therefore
>a scientist(?) that claims to believe in the proofs of evolution is dishonest.
>People see certain phenomena and draw certain conclusions but that does not
>amount to **proof**.  I think it is you who owe an apology.

	Hey dude, science doesn't prove (or even **prove**, whatever
the hell that is) anything. Scientists make hypotheses, and gather
data to test them. There is an overwhelming amount of data to support
evolution, so scientists consider it to be a fact. 

	Evolution, the process, has been observed. Speciation has been
observed. That organisms share a common ancestor is inferred from
numerous lines of evidence (comparative genetic data, comparative
morphology, comparative developmental biology, biogeography and
the the fossil record). If anyone would like a FAQ (I'm sending one
to this poster) outlining the theory of evolution, email me at the
address below. The file give the basics of evolutionary thought and
references to good sources to go to if you want further information.

>IMO it is no more a leap of faith to believe in creation by a single, omnipotent
>deity than to believe in evolution through primordial stew.  You believe what
>you want.  Just don't try to mislead us into the notion that your belief system
>is more logical or probable than ours.

	Sorry, evolution is a fact and creationism is a myth. Your 
ignorance of biology does not change this. Wake up and learn a
little about what you are talking about.

>->  Steven Foster					<-
>->  UUNET: root@devl3.mckee.COM				<-

Chris Colby	email: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu
"And will our voices be heard/Or will they break like the wind"
-Spinal Tap
From: jtisdel@digi.lonestar.org (Michael Tisdel)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: 24 Karat Fundamentalism
Summary: deliver me!
Date: 6 Apr 92 16:49:28 GMT
Organization: DSC Communications Corp, Plano, TX

In article <1992Apr3.145536.23772@city.cs> lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun) writes:
>In article <1992Apr2.112757@IASTATE.EDU> danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock) writes:
>>   I have personally read the work of people who have observed evolution
>>happening[1].  I admit you're right that no one has viewed an act of
>>special creation.
>
>Ahem. As an example of an _isolated_ act of special creation, would you
>allow a person with a missing leg or withered being miraculously healed,
>or eyesight restored to a person with a missing optic nerve? If so, I
>have personally read the work of people who have observed an act of
>special creation.
>

In other words, you read some one who claimed it occurred.  Could
you provide these sources?


-- 
 J. Michael Tisdel              | 
 jtisdel@digi.lonestar.org      | "I want to lie, shipwrecked and comatose,
 DSC Communications Corporation |  Drinking fresh mango juice."
 *** Standard Disclaimer ***    |           -- Red Dwarf
From: alc@netcom.com (Chris Stassen)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Species, Kinds, and Gaps (was: "Re: Darwin's Enigma")
Summary: Gaps is gaps
Date: 16 Apr 92 14:59:25 GMT
Organization: The Lion's Den, San Jose

In article <57NK02IScd9d00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com>
	jloucks@uts.amdahl.com (Jim Loucks) writes:
> That't not what I'm saying. Forget time periods for the moment [...]
> The evidence for punctuated equilibria is a lack of transitional fossils,
> which is exactly what we would expect with special creation.

Again, no.  As I said, this relies on a "gaps is gaps" sort of
argument which relies on ignoring the level of the gaps.  Consider:

Punctiated equilibrium: transitions at the species level are rare.
Creationism: transitions at the "kind" level are never found.

John Morris says that "kind" is above the genus level, in proposing
about six dinosaur genera per "kind."  *That* is why the evidence is
not the same for what creationists and punctuated equilibriists (ack)
would expect.  Regardless of "time," the "systematic" gaps are not
at the right taxonomic level.  The gaps are at a level which Morris
would call "microevolution," and which he has claimed can be bridged
by evolution in a fraction of 2,000 years.

If you want to make "kind" the same as "species" in most cases,
because that is where there are gaps _most_ of the time in the
fossil record, you get into trouble because speciation has been
observed.  (And because it is preserved in some places in the
fossil record.)

If you want to make "kind" equal to a higher taxonomic level to
suit modern-day observations, you will find that the fossil
record contains ample numbers of transitional forms at any level
up to "phylum."  (e.g., Cuffey's list in _Science and Creationism_)

If you want to make "kind" the same as "phylum," you're as much
an "evolutionist" as anyone else here.  Much more than anyone 
else if you still believe in a young earth.  :-)  

[By the way, I completely left "time" out of this discussion because
 you asked me to at the top.  However, time _is_ clearly indicated
 by the fossil record, and that poses an even greater problem for
 creationism.]
-- 
Chris Stassen						stassen@alc.com
DISCLAIMER:  My employer's account, but not their opinions.
From: isaak@imagen.com (mark isaak)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: From the heart!
Date: 16 Apr 92 18:02:58 GMT
Organization: imagen

In article <salem.703395223@pangea.Stanford.EDU> salem@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Bruce Salem) writes:
>... in addition YOU must suggest something useful as an alternative
>means to a different theory.

It seems to me that no theory at all is more useful than a theory
which is wrong.  (Let me hasten to make the distinction that the
same is not true of hypotheses.)

On the subject of the development of the heart, however, it is
absolutely worthless to argue that evolution does not explain it.
This is simply another way of saying, "I don't know how evolution
can explain it," and arguments from ignorance are not compelling.
Rather, one must argue that evolution CAN NOT explain it.  This is
a much, much more difficult task.
-- 
Mark Isaak    imagen!isaak@decwrl.dec.com  or  {decwrl,sun}!imagen!isaak
	       "The color of truth is gray." - Andre Gide
From: hyde@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Great paper
Date: 14 Apr 92 17:29:03 GMT
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

In article <6cwjm+f@lynx.unm.edu>, rsquires@cyclops.eece.unm.edu (Roger Squires) writes:
> Well, I have just finished reading
> 	Variations in the Earth's Orbit:  Pacemaker of the Ice Ages
> 	Hays, Imbrie, Shackleton
> 	Science, V194, No. 4270, p1121
> I don't recall who recommended this one to me, but THANKS!
> 
> This is a *kick* *ass* paper!  And easy to read too!  90% of it is
> basic Signal Processing: *Cake*!  Talk about completely independent
> subjects (Sea core data and Astronomical calculations) confirming
> each other's findings!  Great stuff.
> 
> I did find a gross flaw in the argument, however.  They say:
> 	The coherence of these results across different variables
> 	measured in two cores we regard as very powerful support for
> 	the theory. ... a result that is independent of absolute age
> 	specifications and depends only on the assumption of constant
> 	accumulation rates.                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Jumps right out at you, doesn't it?  Uniformitarianism rearing its ugly
> head once again!  Oooooo Nooooooo!

	Quite right.  However, this paper is the earliest of the ones I
	cited.  Later papers in the list challenge this assumption,
	and date cores without the constant sedimentation rate
	approximation.  In fact, last summer at a conference
	I attended one of the speakers attempted to present a paper based
	on a core dated by the constant sedimentation rate
	method.  He was just about shouted off the stage, and the
	paper was, in consequence, redone with more sophisticated
	sedimentology. That's progress.

	It turns out that for open ocean sites the approximation
	is not too bad (for example the sedimentation rate for one
	twenty thousand year period during the ice age is
	probably about the same for any other twenty thousand year
	period in that era)  it is not good enough for work which
	needs to be relatively high resolution in time.

	This is an example of just what Ted does not understand about
	uniformitarianism.  It is often used as a first hypothesis,
	since this simplifies the analysis.  It is then tested, to
	see if it really applies.  In some cases, like this one,
	it is not a good hypothesis and is replaced with something
	more sophisticated.



						Bill Hyde
Department of Oceanography
Dalhousie University,
Halifax, Nova Scotia
hyde@ac.dal.ca or hyde@dalac
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: mls@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (mike.siemon)
Subject: Re: Scriptural Authority Re: Does theory of evolution affect belief in God?
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 03:22:06 GMT
Summary: try listening a little easier

In article <salem.703389176@pangea.Stanford.EDU>, salem@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Bruce Salem) writes:

> 	I grow weary of brinkman. I don't understand his problem
> with what I said. He is making alot more out of what I said than
> anyone else has.

I suspect that is because others, like me, see you as too set in your
opinion for it to be worth arguing about.  For what its worth, I *do*
agree with Mat (with the point he is trying to make, not with the rather
high pitch of the rhetoric he has come to, in a vain attempt to get you
to even notice the point, let alone respond to it.)

You have all the earmarks of someone who, having "escaped" evangelical
Christianity, still sees the world (only, with the sign changed) in its
stark and violent terms.
-- 
Michael L. Siemon		   "Oh, stand, stand at the window,
					As the tears scald and start;
mls@usl.com			   You shall love your crooked neighbor
standard disclaimer			With your crooked heart."
From: salem@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Bruce Salem)
Subject: The role of theories Re: From the heart!
Organization: DSG, Stanford University
Date: 17 Apr 92 02:03:39 GMT

isaak@imagen.com (mark isaak) writes:

>In article <salem.703395223@pangea.Stanford.EDU> salem@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Bruce Salem) writes:
>>... in addition YOU must suggest something useful as an alternative
>>means to a different theory.

>It seems to me that no theory at all is more useful than a theory
>which is wrong.  (Let me hasten to make the distinction that the
>same is not true of hypotheses.)

	Well, then hypothesis, if found out to be wrong are MORE
useful than throwing up your hands and saying "I don't know and
can't know." If you know something, and guess, even with the likelihood
of being in error, you have contributed something because you have
posed questions for which someone else can get confirming or denying
evidance.

>On the subject of the development of the heart, however, it is
>absolutely worthless to argue that evolution does not explain it.
>This is simply another way of saying, "I don't know how evolution
>can explain it," and arguments from ignorance are not compelling.
>Rather, one must argue that evolution CAN NOT explain it.  This is
>a much, much more difficult task.

Agreed.

Bruce Salem
From: news@fedfil.UUCP (news)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Ignoring Facts
Date: 11 Apr 92 06:59:55 GMT
Organization: HTE

> jtisdel@digi.lonestar.org (Michael Tisdel) writes:
> >First off, Ted makes a good presentation.  Now, I do
> >have a problem with one statement he makes.  He says that
> >there is a probablility of zero that various cultures
> >would have similar mythologies. 

Not similar...  identical.  I claim that there is no possibility of Meso
American and Egyptian cultures both retaining a story of a global
disaster caused by and totally associated with Venus, simply by chance.

Again, as is commonly known, the planet Venus was the primary focus of all
American religion and ceremony at the time of the arrival of the Europeans.
Their religion was still the old Ishtar/Baal worship, i.e. Venus worship,
which had existed in the near east during biblical times.

Ted Holden
HTE           // my apologies for rest of signature appearing past this
	     //  point.  This is due to a technical imperfection in the
	     //  system I am presently using and a need to separate my 
	     //  account from others...  (i.e. the HTE/Bear part)


-- 
HTE
bear
From: xrhah@nssdca.gsfc.nasa.gov (Herbert A. Huston)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: largest and oldest organism found?
Keywords: In this weeks Nature, researchers report finding a single
Date: 10 Apr 92 22:22:00 GMT
Organization: NASA - Goddard Space Flight Center
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Apr8.160837@IASTATE.EDU>, danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock) writes...
>   I though there were pine trees much older than 1500 years old?

Yep, there are bristlecone pines in California that are more than 4000 
years old.

-- Herb Huston
From: lindsay+@cs.cmu.edu (Donald Lindsay)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Darwin's Enigma
Date: 14 Apr 92 22:08:55 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon


jloucks@uts.amdahl.com (Jim Loucks) writes:
>For me, whether it's unacceptable in science really depends on 
>the scientist, most are honest while some are not. This is true
>in every profession, including pastors/tel-evangelists/etc.

I can't argue against a generalization. Please name a dishonest
scientist. You might start with the dishonest scientists who falsify
all those datings, for example. Who are they? Or was the tele-
Creationist I saw last night lying?

I've asked for names before. I never get them. It does not reflect
well on you that you insinuate, then don't deliver.

>...proponents of punctuated equilibria. The latter of which I 
>fail to see the difference between Goldschmidt's hopeful monster
>concept and evidence for creation. How can a theory be falsified
>if it is so generalized that it can explain any conceivable type
>of evidence?  What good is it to science if it's not falsifiable?

Punctuated-equilibrium is only a small variation on the current
theory. Its falsifiability (or lack thereof) doesn't change the 
falsifiability of the overall theory. Which is in fine shape.
If you don't agree, you might be more specific.
-- 
Don		D.C.Lindsay 	Carnegie Mellon Computer Science
From: amorgan@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Crunchy Frog)
Subject: Re: Does theory of evolution affect belief in God?
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 23:54:09 GMT

In article <1992Apr15.195319.25688@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> 
  kjp@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (karl.j.pfaff..jr) writes:
>I read this group occasionally and notice that most of the questioning of 
>belief is directed toward the creationist side of the table. Does anyone
>have a thought (I'm sure you do) on what the effect on this group would be
>if creation was found to be true? 

Wasn't there a *long* thread on this just a few weeks ago?

>I'm curious, because the idea of religion vs science seems to be an additional
>division of subgroups within the main evolution/creation elements.  But if God
>does exist, then His existence would be fact and would have to be incorporated 
>into our consideration of science.  

Why?  Shakespeare existed, but that is not incorporated into science.  Even
if God(tm) exists, it doesn't mean that he would take *any* interest in
Earthly goings-on or would interact in any way with us.

Finally, if creationism turned out to be true, God would have quite a
few questions to answer about why he created a universe, solar-system,
planet, fossil-record, genetic-record, etc. that contradicted the truth.
What a kidder!

>Karl J. Pfaff, Jr.
>att!linc!kjp

C Frog
From: rjc@cstr.ed.ac.uk (Richard Caley)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Darwin's Enigma
Date: 16 Apr 92 02:01:19 GMT
	<0ebs02b=cd5v00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com>
Organization: Centre for Speech Technology Research

In article <0ebs02b=cd5v00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com>, Jim Loucks (jl) writes:

jl> Punctuated equilbria is evidence supporting a lack of transitional
jl> fossils, exactly what creationism predicts. I've asked before, what
jl> determines the difference in the physical evidence, such as the 
jl> fossil record, for punctuated equilibria and creationism?

Since no one ever says what `creations science' _is_ this question is
unanswerable. It is not for us to come up with evidence for and
against creation science, it is for those proposing it to do so. The
way to have a scientific theory accepted is to try really hard to
falsify it and prove that you have done so. At some point there are
enough failed falsifications to make it look interesting, at that
point others may start working at trying to falsify your theory too.
That is what sucess is for a scientific theory, not people saying it
is right, but people trying to show it is wrong.

They have been trying to prove variations on Darwinian evolution wrong
for a long time now, this makes people very impressed with it. People
have tried to prove it wrong in geology, zoology, chemistry, medicine
etc. etc. This means that if you have an alternative, it will have to
make interesting predictions in all of those fields to attract any
interest. 
--
rjc@cogsci.ed.ac.uk	If a sperm was the size of a whale however it
			would be swimming at 15,000 MPH, or Mach 20.
				- Laurie Anderson
From: bruce@tcom.stc.co.uk (Bruce Munro)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Ted: Tank Expert...NOT
Date: 6 Apr 92 16:08:19 GMT
Organization: BNR Europe, New Southgate, London.

In article <1992Apr3.210612.10664@husc3.harvard.edu> murphy1@husc10.harvard.edu (Gerard J. Murphy) writes:
>Apologies for the continuation of this slightly off-topic thread, but
>I am compelled to temporarily cease lurking to do my share in helping
>to debunk Ted.
> 
>In article <2708@fedfil.UUCP>, news@fedfil.UUCP says:
> 
>>The Maus was a self-propelled heavy gun, which is an entirely different
>>category of animal than tanks...
> 
>   Why, Ted?  Because you say so?  In this, as happily in so many of
>your 'opinions', you are damned near alone.

Yes Ted, why exactly was Maus a self-propelled gun? It had a rotating
turret with two guns (128mm and either an 88m or 75mm secondary). The term
"self-proplled gun" usually refers to an artillery piece mounted on a
tracked vehicle. It is sometimes used to refer to the variants of standard
tanks that had fixed turrets, heavier armer and a larger calibre weapon.
The Germans produced several of these including the JagdTiger that
Gerard mentioned, and also the JagdPanther and others. These types were
also known as "tank destroyers" if I remember correctly. Perhaps you are
mistaking Maus for one of these machines?

>>The tiger was the heaviest TANK...
> 
>   Again, why?  Because The Inimitable One thinks so?

He's got you again Ted. The Tiger(I or II) was not as heavy as Maus.

Contrary to what you say both marks of Tiger tank were pretty fearsome
weapons. The Tiger I was pretty slow, but not incredibly so. The problems
with manouevrability stemmed mainly from it's greater than normal width
that meant it had trouble crossing narrow bridges, and also had problems
in narrow lanes, and whilst being transported by railway.

Also if you think that tanks are only ever tested in "nice dry test
cites[sic]", you're sadly mistaken (what a surprise). A feature of
any tank testing would include mud and wet conditions as a matter of course.

-- 
Bruce Munro.  <bruce@tcom.stc.co.uk> || ...!mcsun!ukc!stc!bruce
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