HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: andrews@sp95.csrd.uiuc.edu (John Andrews)
Subject: Re: Please post FAQ
Organization: UIUC Center for Supercomputing Research and Development
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 93 01:49:42 GMT

I also want the FAQ.  I asked for this a month ago and got zero replies.
Please help!!

--
John Andrews (andrews@csrd.uiuc.edu) "He who dies with the shortest .sig, wins"
Graduate Research Assistant, Center for Supercomputing R&D, Urbana, IL
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Velikovsites
Date: 21 Dec 92 14:03:52 GMT
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA


Two questions, the first with two parts:
1. How many velikovsky followers, and what are th eir qualification for
critiquing the "traditional" sciences?

2. Who here has been "persuaded" by the THE posts?


--
James W. Meritt:  m23364@mwunix.mitre.org - or - jmeritt@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.
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher)
Subject: Re: Throop/Nietzsche problems
Organization: CONVEX Computer Corporation, Richardson, Tx., USA
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 19:49:08 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

>> Many people need no Cosmic Fuehrer to give meaning to their lives. 
>> Free your mind. Find your soul. Join us.

>The next world may not have the cosmic fuhrer.  You've missed the point.

I guess I have. What do you mean by "the next world"?


>Evolution logically denies the next world.  Without something beyond this
>world, what meaning would you claim your life has?  What do you plan on 
>doing within the next ten years which anybody 5000 years from now will have
>any way of knowing about or which will affect them or anything else in the
>universe in any way?

(Assuming that the "next world" means some existence for us after our 
deaths:)
Looks like you're establishing an infinite regression. Does the "next world"
itself require a "next+1 world" to give it meaning? If yes, then where does it
stop? If no, then why not adopt the simplest interpretation and conclude that 
"this world" contains all of the meaning and potential for meaning that 
existence requires?

The purpose of my life is to contribute as I can to the development of
self-knowledge of the universe, and to discover the "meaning" of 
existence, if one exists, and to invent a fit "meaning" if one does
not already exist. I do not expect to see much of this accomplished
in my lifetime. I, and others, struggle on in the hope that those
who come after us will know more. I see nothing to suggest that Out
There, somewhere, Big JuJu waits to push The Answers on us when he
sees fit. If this should turn out to be the case, it might make existence
seem as pointless and insignificant as a stage play or a game of 
slides-and-ladders. Where's the dignity in being Someone Else's pawn,
entertainment or object lesson?

I don't expect that anyone will have any knowledge of my unique existence
5000 years, or perhaps even 100 years hence. Are you terrified of the
thought that, 5000 years from now, no one will know that Ted Holden
once existed? (Besides, what are you worried about? Your wisdom and the
essence of your personality will live
forever in countless Net archive tapes, at least until they forget how
to read all the formats...) Wake up, Ted; we'll have a lot of company 
among the anonymous dead. We only get one shot at this existence deal.
We have to make the best of it, in and of itself. And the goofy part is
that we have to figure out what "best" means as we go along.
From: dave@ptp.hp.com (Dave Waller)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Cosmos without Gravitation
Date: 29 Dec 1992 17:29:50 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpdsm0b.ptp.hp.com

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.

I believe you are incorrect on this one, Jim. The moon MUST be rotating,
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
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: al@gtx.uucp (Alan Filipski)
Subject: Re: Men Evolved from Women
Organization: GTX Corporation, Phoenix AZ
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 14:44:27 GMT

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."


I interpret the statement "planes were around before jets" to mean
"there exists a plane x such that, for all jets y, x existed before y
did".  I think that this is the conventional english interpretation.

How is this "logically invalid"? or do you interpret the statement
differently?


  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 ( Alan Filipski, GTX Corp, 8836 N. 23rd Avenue, Phoenix, Arizona 85021, USA )
 ( INTERNET: al@gtx.com      UUCP: uunet!gtx!al         PHONE: (602)870-1696 )
  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: Dr.Pepper@f241.n103.z1.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Bales has graced us with his presence again
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Nov 17 1992
Date: 21 Dec 92  00:52:00

Good to see you back Bob. Would you please state that theory of creationism?

+--------------------------+--------------------------------------+
| 10                    2  | Garden Grove Institute of Technology |
|        DR PEPPER         | Community Outreach Center            |
|                       4  |                                      |
+--------------------------+ Snail Addr: Unit #1, 7872 Trask      |
| Hussein: We made him, we |             Westminster, Ca  92683   |
| broke him, we'll build   | Modem:      714-894-7039             |
| him up again if we want  | Fidonet:    1:103/241                |
| to, we're the US.        | Candynet:   42:1001/1                |
|                          | Internet:   Dr.Pepper@f241.n103.z1   |
|                          |              .fidonet.org            |
+--------------------------+--------------------------------------+

---
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: schwartz@roke.cs.psu.edu (Scott Schwartz)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Profound disappointment
Date: 30 Dec 92 18:58:24 GMT


    The sad thing to learn from this is that, for your average
creationist, science and velikovskiism probably don't look all that
different.  Very likely creationists think that scientists are
unreasonable in the same way that scientists think velikovskiites are.
Ted is trying to illuminate that twisted point.  Moreover, by
defending velikovsky Ted is able to mock science in a way that
creationists cannot.  They are either required to pretend to
scientific validity, or compelled to reject science outright on behalf
of religion.  Ted, on the other hand, could pretend to embrace science
while actually presenting a parody that is intended to damn it.  To a
creationist this looks great.  They say to themselves, "Look at all
the patent nonsense these scientists come up with.  We've always known
it, but now everyone will realize it!  And if they don't realize it,
we've taken a bite out of the evilutionist conspiracy".
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Speed of Light *NOT* Constant
Date: 22 Dec 92 02:37:33 GMT
Followup-To: talk.origins
Organization: (Evil Eye Creature from Mars, Inc.)

In article <w28uVB3w165w@kalki33>, kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
wrote:
> seanna@bnr.ca (Seanna Watson) writes:

> > Does this have anything to do with the fast-disappearing
> > photograph of God that Kalki claims to have? ;)
 
> Your local public library probably has a photograph of God.

And not only one; most probably many, many of them, depending 
on how extensive the religion and mythology sections are.

Kent
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.		
"Don't just do something!  Stand there!"  -- Mystery Science Theater 3000
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: On God and Science
From: lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Date: 22 Dec 1992 00:18 MST  
 <1992Dec20.223129.25238@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> <21DEC199211270751@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu> <102878@netnews.upenn.edu>
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <102878@netnews.upenn.edu>, rowe@pender.ee.upenn.edu (Mickey Rowe) writes...
>In article <21DEC199211270751@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu>
>     lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) writes:
> 
>> I can, and do, agree with everything [Eric Sotnak
>> (esot@troi.cc.rochester.edu) said in article
>> <1992Dec20.223129.25238@galileo.cc.rochester.edu>] without agreeing
>> that the anthropic principle explains the existence of life.
> 
>Would you agree, however, that the (im)probability arguments about why
>things are such that "life" could form are uninformative?  It seems

Well, the bad ones are uninformative.  There are good ones, though.
(Again, let me refer to Robert Shapiro's _Origins_ book, in which
he compares several different theories of the origin of life and
assesses their relative (im)probabilities.)

>that that was the gist of the initial post to which you objected.  I
>believe it was Mark Isaak who wrote what you called "a bad argument".
>Mark did not claim that any anthropic principle "explained life", only
>that:
> 
>}>}>>I, too, once marveled at the unlikelihood of everything in the
>}>}>>universe coming together in such a way to create me.  Such an occurrance
>}>}>>seemed wildly improbable.  Then I realized that, had all circumstances
>}>}>>not been as they were, I wouldn't be around to marvel, so questions of
>}>}>>probability are meaningless.  The probability of my existence, given that
>}>}>>I exist, is exactly one, no matter what my theological assumption
> 
>If you agree with Eric, and your objection is merely that Mark hasn't
>explained the existence of life, then I think you were a bit too
>hasty.  Mark didn't claim to explain the existance of life; he only
>claimed that Lionel's statements about its probability of occurrence
>were somewhat meaningless.

I think there *are* meaningful probabilities to be discussed regarding
the origin of life.

Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
From: swf@tools3teradata.com (Stan Friesen)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Creation Evidences
Date: 24 Dec 92 00:03:16 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <7998@tekig7.PEN.TEK.COM>, alanf@tekig6.PEN.TEK.COM (Alan M Feuerbacher) writes:
|> What I meant is that _The Collapse of the Evolution Theory_ uses
|> the simple-minded argument that, because biologists class
|> Archaeopteryx as a bird, it cannot have been a transitional form.
|> This act of classification is supposed to somehow knock off
|> evolutionary arguments that the *structural* intermediacy of
|> Archaeopteryx also implies temporal intermediacy.

Yecchh - what idiotic reasoning.

|> The creationist argument is ridiculous because biologists have to
|> put the thing into *some* class -- and the two closest classes
|> are birds and reptiles.

And given that the agreed upon rules for establishing a classification require
a simple hierarchical classification, with no joint memberships.

|>Given the two choices, which would
|> you choose?

Well, actually, I tend towards calling A. a reptile, but then I am in the
minority there.  [I would place the boundry between dinosaurs and birds at
the first organism to have a clearly defined sternal keel - that is I would
limit birds to the carinate forms - A. is non-carinate].

|> The recent hooplah about Sankar Chatterjee's Protoavis shows
|> there are many questions left to be answered.

Yep, and given Dr. Chatterjee's track record in deriving phylogenies, I will
accept Protoavis as a bird when several people *other* than Dr. Martin of K.U.
say the evidence is compelling. [Note: Dr. Chatterjee's style of deriving a
phylogeny is so odd that I would never listen to him on that subject].

-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
From: lmh@iago.caltech.edu (Henling, Lawrence M.)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Throop/Nietzsche problems
Date: 24 Dec 1992 15:24 PDT
Organization: California Institute of Technology
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: iago.caltech.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <184@fedfil.UUCP>, news@fedfil.UUCP (news) aka ted holden writes...
>Evolution logically denies the next world.  Without something beyond this
>world, what meaning would you claim your life has?  What do you plan on 
>doing within the next ten years which anybody 5000 years from now will have
>any way of knowing about or which will affect them or anything else in the
>universe in any way?

 Evolution has no comment on the next world, assuming there is any such.

 Congratulations, ted, you have made your mark. I am sure that even 5000
years from now people will still recall your illogical posts. You are a
Usenet legend in your own time on so many newsgroups that it is difficult
to comprehend. 

larry henling  lmh@shakes.caltech.edu
From: huston@access.digex.com (Herb Huston)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: New collection of essays by Stephen Jay Gould
Date: 30 Dec 1992 21:53:50 GMT
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: access.digex.com

Get multiple copies of _Origins Reconsidered_ by Richard Leakey and Roger
Lewin for Christmas?  (I did.)  When I went in to exchange it, I saw a copy
of _Eight Little Piggies_, a new (the sixth) collection of essays by Gould.
The copyright date was 1993.

-- Herb Huston
-- huston@access.digex.com
From: lmh@iago.caltech.edu (Henling, Lawrence M.)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Throop/Nietzsche problems
Date: 22 Dec 1992 23:46 PDT
Organization: California Institute of Technology
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: iago.caltech.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <182@fedfil.UUCP}, news@fedfil.UUCP (news) aka ted holden writes...
} 
} 
}lesser known fact that new studies are revealing that the spiritual
}realm which most normal people believe in and can sense, once existed at
}least in part on this earth.  At present we cannot perceive this other
}realm directly or with our senses, and a goodly number of people have
} 
 We "cannot perceive this other realm ... with our senses", that is,
"the spiritual realm which most normal people .... can sense."
Can ted sense or perceieve his own nonsense?

}following consideration.  Suppose evolutionists are right, that man is
}simply a freak accident, the final end product of a long chain of events
}governed by random and chance processes, originating with single-celled
}creatures somehow self-generating from inert/inorganic materials which
}somehow simply got lucky.  Then basically, you're saying to the common
}man, "Abandon hope!  You're going to die in thirty or forty years, and
 Why should man abandon hope? Given ted's odds against, I would think
he is on quite a roll.


} 
}See what I mean?  Throop just doesn't get it.  The fact that man's
}entire existence becomes utterly meaningless under this system does not
}even strike him as a problem.  Kind of like somebody standing there

 So ted needs meaning in his life and therefore god must exist. Why 
won't more religious people admit the true reason for their beliefs?

larry henling  lmh@shakes.caltech.edu
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: On God and Science
Date: 22 Dec 1992 21:51:29 GMT
Organization: sgi
Distribution: world,local
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <1992Dec22.122611.21699@city.cs>, lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun) writes:
|> esot@troi.cc.rochester.edu (Eric Sotnak) writes:
|> >Mr. Tun has made the mistake of claiming that since the
|> >(antecedent) probability of life existing (or having come into existence) is
|> >so low, supernatural agency must be involved.  Another mistake in judgment.
|> 
|> I would not have said low, but rather zero - ie impossible. The
|> mistake is in assuming that if there are enough `tries' then
|> something that is impossible becomes possible.

How would you justify this "zero" claim?

jon.
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: keithd@well.sf.ca.us (Keith Doyle)
Subject: Re: Request Denied (Like that's a big surprise)
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 06:08:18 GMT



brinkman@si151a.llnl.gov writes:
>>I can think of three reason's for Dr. Thompson's refusal:

>   Bill, you missed the most obvious answer, and one that Kalki already
>provided for explaining such mystifying actions...

>4) Dr Thompson is afraid to take any action that may shake his most
>   cherished beliefs.  This so-called scientist is just a big chicken.
>   Bwaack-bwaack!

What I find more interesting about this Kalki episode is that through the
entire process, the Kalki apparently did not understand Thompson's
arguments well enough to carry them on independently, and had to defer
to posting an entire chapter out of his book.  I guess Kalki has no
opinions on the subject unless Thompson provides them.  Either that, or
they realize a good book salesman will not be able to make a sale of a
book who's appeal depends on the illusion of new scientific arguments
when a public posting of part of the book might expose its illusionary
nature.

Keith
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: dwolff@res-c4.Prime.COM (David Wolff)
Subject: Re: Uniformity:  miniscule cause and monstrous effect
Keywords: Astrologers v. Velikovsky???
Organization: Computervision
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 17:12:24 GMT

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.

On another point, if the earth and/or other planets changed their orbits
significantly, wouldn't astrologers have noticed?  The old Hindu charts
don't seem to have been updated for major celestial rearrangements, nor
have the Western interpretations.  Thus there seems to be a major conflict
between Velikovskian theory and astrological theory.  Presumably one or
the other is wrong (or, heaven forfend, both...)

David Wolff

dwolff@RES-C4.Prime.COM

Disclaimer:  Reflecting Computervision policy is a non-goal of this posting.
FreeAdvert:  Esperanto, the international language *that works*:
             Call (800) 828-5944 for free info package (US or Canada)
Wolff'sLaw:  For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction,
             but generally too late to do any good.
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Subject: Re: Request Denied (Like that's a big surprise)
Reply-To: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 15:47:01 GMT

In article <BznD1u.6Fo@well.sf.ca.us>, keithd@well.sf.ca.us (Keith Doyle)
writes:

   [Kalki's pathetic attempts to wish evolution out of existence thread]

> What I find more interesting about this Kalki episode is that through the
> entire process, the Kalki apparently did not understand Thompson's
> arguments well enough to carry them on independently, and had to defer
> to posting an entire chapter out of his book.  I guess Kalki has no
> opinions on the subject unless Thompson provides them.  Either that, or
> they realize a good book salesman will not be able to make a sale of a
> book who's appeal depends on the illusion of new scientific arguments
> when a public posting of part of the book might expose its illusionary
> nature.
> 
> Keith

   If someone's doing a psychoprofile of the typical creationists this 
should be included.  Creationists (the long term comitted ones) 
typically understand almost nothing on the rational level.  Their means
of arriving at the truth is to cite what they feel to be a prominent 
authority.  Having found an authority figure that says what they want
they then brandish that authority figure like Van Helsing waving a 
silver cross at a Vampire.

   This is really tragic because they end up citing sources that don't
actually support their position.  Look at Cotera's recent attempt to 
sieze on out-of-contex phrases from an elementary text on evolution 
because they seemed, to him, to say what he wanted said.  Take as another
example Bob Bales who can't even correctly state the theory he's 
attempting to refute.  He just brandishes his voodoo-fetish phrases
over and over.

   Goddamn they're lucky we aren't really vampires...

Dan
Danwell@IASTATE.EDU

Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: bvickers@valentine.ics.uci.edu (Brett J. Vickers)
Subject: Re: Lionel Tun: evolutionary relic.
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Reply-To: bvickers@ics.uci.edu (Brett J. Vickers)
Organization: Univ. of Calif., Irvine, Info. & Computer Sci. Dept.
Date: 22 Dec 92 04:52:54 GMT

Since I got burned the last time I excoriated someone for posting
a supposed theory of creation, I'll just sit here and assume this
recent attempt to endow creationism with a scientific backbone
was a joke.

:-)
--
Brett J. Vickers
bvickers@ics.uci.edu
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: Probability of Life
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 12:53:30 GMT

In article <n12e6t@ofa123.fidonet.org> David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org writes:
}The Tunian Logic (tm) is greatly flawed because he has failed to show
}that abiogenesis is highly improbable. There are many schools of
}thought who believe that life is LIKELY to occur.

To me personally, it appears almost inevitable.  Whatever "life" is, of course.
Now, I don't necessarily think that it has to resemble me - or you - but the
systems appear to develop almost inexorably given the proper conditions. 
The "proper conditions" appear to be extremely flexible...