HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rh@smds.com (Richard Harter)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Evolution implied by the Bible
Date: 5 Jan 93 00:28:39 GMT
Reply-To: rh@ishmael.UUCP (Richard Harter)
Organization: Software Maintenance & Development Systems, Inc.

In article <1993Jan04.000557.19737@jcnpc.cmhnet.org> mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mike A. McAngus) writes:

>If Man was created only thousands of years ago, and we are all
>descended from common stock... why is there such a wide variety
>in our genetic pool today?

>Do you believe that the ancestors of people as diverse as South
>American forest pygmies, Zulus, Europeans and Japanese were the
>same as yours only a few thousand years ago?...

>If you do admit this much evolution can take place in such a short
>time (hundreds of generations) then what objections can you take
>against the extension of the idea to the theory of Darwinian
>evolution as it stands today?

Actually the matter is quite simple.  We know that Adam and Eve were
created perfect.  We also know that they acquired this burden of
original sin which has been inherited down through the generations.
Originally Adam and Eve shared all of the original sin.  As the
population increased the burden of original sin was split among more
and more people, i.e. the individuals in the later generations have
a smaller individual share of original sin.  Since degeneration in
the racial stock [e.g. mutation] is proportional to the amount of
original sin present, the amount of "evolution", i.e. loss of genetic
perfection at any particular time is proportional to 1/P where P is
the current population.

Currently the population is quite high, ergo the rate of change is
quite low.  The evolutionist error is to extrapolate backwards on
the assumption that the current rate of change is a constant.  By
using this assumption the "molecular clock" indicates an origin of
hundreds of thousands of years ago for the human species.  However,
as we have seen, the "molecular" clock ran much faster near the
origin.  For relativity fans, the problem is that evolutionists are
using tau time when they should be using t time.

Now you know.
-- 
Richard Harter: SMDS Inc.  Net address: rh@smds.com Phone: 508-369-7398 
US Mail: SMDS Inc., PO Box 555, Concord MA 01742.    Fax: 508-369-8272
In the fields of Hell where the grass grows high
Are the graves of dreams allowed to die.
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: adpeters@sunflower.bio.indiana.edu (Andy Peters)
Subject: Re: Biology majors pleez!
Organization: Biology, Indiana University - Bloomington
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 19:13:42 GMT

In article <1993Jan11.100725.10864@panix.com> arandia@panix.com (Joel Arandia) writes:
>
>Hi!  Are there biologists who believe in Creationism?  Is evolution a necessary
>part of Biology?
>
>Mr. Curious

"Nothing in biology makes any sense except in the light of evolution"

--Theodosius Dobzhansky

What else needs to be said?
-- 
--Andy
     "God is a real estate developer / with offices around the nation
          They say one day he'll liquidate / his holdings on High
             I say it's all speculation." -- Michelle Shocked
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: bseymour@encore.com (Burch Seymour)
Subject: Re: Sagan's <Super Greenhouse>/ Three Strikes
Organization: Encore Computer Corporation
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 13:07:01 GMT

news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:

<Much ranting about Venus deleted>

>That's three strikes.  The next time somebody tells you they want to talk
>about SGH, tell them (in the immortal words of Al Capone) that you want
>to talk about baseball.

>-- 
>Ted Holden
>HTE

Hey Ted, talk about baseball!

Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: hyde@cs.dal.ca (Bill Hyde)
Subject: Re: Cosmos without Gravitation
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 20:48:46 GMT

In article <193@fedfil.UUCP>, news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
|> In article <btd.725965254@pv7440.vincent.iastate.edu>, btd@iastate.edu (Benjamin T Dehner) writes:
|> 
|> ^	Several times I have requested models/calculations from Mr. Holden,
|> ^with no result.  As a specific example, I have asked for model atmospheres
|> ^of Venus which SHOW that pure solar energy cannot give the observed tempera-
|> ^ture profile.  As we are only now begining to understand global atmospheric
|> ^dynamics,

	Something of an exaggeration.  The basics have been understood
	for a long time.  



 I find it unlikely that this request will ever be answered.
|> 
|> In other words, since I cannot provide for Venus what nobody else can even 
|> provide for this planet, which is closer and easier to study, everything
|> else I might have to say regarding Venus is to be discounted.


	I have several times posted references to model studies
	which have no difficulty reproducing the basic thermal
	properties of the Venusian atmosphere - in particular
	the immense surface heat which bothers you so much.
	I have even posted a simple radiative model on the net.
	You have yet to acknowledge, let alone criticise, these models.
|> 
|> Does it strike you as strange that nobody on the other side would be willing
|> to play this game by that set of rules?


	But we are, and we do.  It's called science.  I await your
	model studies of the venusian atmosphere.


						Bill Hyde
Department of Oceanography
Dalhousie University,
Halifax, Nova Scotia
hyde@Ice.ATM.Dal.Ca or hyde@dalac

Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: ds0007@medtronic.COM (Dale Skiba)
Subject: Re: Future evolution of Creationism
Organization: Medtronic, Inc.
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 13:35:07 GMT

Broughton, Wayne Jeremy (waynebro@juliet.caltech.edu) wrote:
[ stuff deleted ]

: I still think it is only a matter of
: time until the majority of the general public is as comfortable with the
: fact of evolution as they are with the fact that the Earth revolves around
: the sun.

: (This actually raises an interesting point: IS the general public in fact
: comfortable with Copernican astronomy?  I wonder if a large percentage of
: the population is as ignorant of that as they are of evolutionary theory.
: I have been appalled to hear people admit gross misunderstandings of the
: structure of the solar system or the nature of stars and planets).

It is sad that the average person in the USA is ignorant of BOTH Science
and the history of Science.

: There is an important distinction between Creationism and the anti-Copernican
: reaction: there were genuine scientific problems (in the Aristotlean 
: "paradigm") with Copernican theory that could only be resolved by adopting
: a Galilean/Newtonian point of view, and in many ways Copernican theory was
: just a simpler alternative to Ptolemaic astronomy to explain the known
: observational data.  Modern Creationism has no genuine scientific support
: and is not just an alternative explanation of the available data.  It's
: current success rests on ignorance of science (as Jim Acker points out)
: and fundamentalist religious motivations (as Tim Chow and Bill Hamilton
: point out).

Right, if I remember my history of science correctly, Gallileo supplied
the most critical observation -- moons orbiting Jupiter.  Until this
was known, was there really any reason to say that everything orbits
the earth?

I think the average person in the USA does not have much knowledge of
the fundamental observations/experiments in ANY Science.  So, they have
a very limited ability to assess what other people "tell them about
Science."

--
Dale Skiba
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: jgacker@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker)
Subject: Re: Book: The Creationists
Organization: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center - Greenbelt, MD USA
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 19:55:19 GMT

Brett J. Vickers (bvickers@valentine.ics.uci.edu) wrote:

: By the way, it is interesting to see Phillip Johnson (_Darwin on Trial_)
: appear in this forum.  Perhaps he would be willing to answer questions
: about his own book?


	As Sam says on "Quantum Leap":  "Oh boy..."


============================================================
|  James G. Acker                       Occasional Genius  |
|  jgacker@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov        Regular Swimmer    |
|                                                          |
|  "Animal-based research in this field ignores the fact   |
|  that in humans much sexual behavior has little to do    |
|  with reproduction both psychologically and physio-      |
|  logically..."                                           |
============================================================
From: rogers@rtf.bt.co.uk (Neal Rogers)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Private mail to James Meritt
Date: 7 Jan 93 18:32:16 GMT
Organization: BT Customer Systems, Brighton, UK

Jim,

I tried sending you private email, but it got bounced back to me as
follows -

From mailer-daemon%mailer.jhuapl.edu@axion.bt.co.uk Thu Jan  7 16:40:16 1993
Received: from aplmail.jhuapl.edu by zaphod.axion.bt.co.uk with SMTP (PP) id <18765-0@zaphod.axion.bt.co.uk>; Thu, 7 Jan 1993 16:39:01 +0000
Received: by mailer.jhuapl.edu (5.57/1.13)
	id AA05714; Thu, 7 Jan 93 11:39:46 EST
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 93 11:39:46 EST
From: MAILER-DAEMON@mailer.jhuapl.edu (Mail Delivery Subsystem)
Subject: Returned mail: User unknown

   ----- Transcript of session follows -----
>>> RCPT To:<jwm@tea-sparc.jhuapl.edu>
<<< 550 <jwm@tea-sparc.jhuapl.edu>... User unknown
550 <jwm@sun4.jhuapl.edu>... User unknown

I got your mail address from the list of FAQs FAQ.
The original email was -

I've just read in talk.origins that you hold the FAQ for Velikovsky
related issues. 

Any chance of you mailing it to me ?

Thanks in advance.

Neal


***   To everyone else - sorry about the waste of bandwidth !!  ***

-- 
Neal Rogers
rogers@rtf.bt.co.uk   BT Customer Systems, Brighton Systems Centre.




-- 
Neal Rogers
rogers@rtf.bt.co.uk   BT Customer Systems, Brighton Systems Centre.
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: Cosmos without Gravitation
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 13:40:07 GMT

In article <1993Jan4.195428.11860@news.columbia.edu> rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston) writes:
}In article <1992Dec29.164826.5044@linus.mitre.org> m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
}>In article <1992Dec29.143703.7029@hsr.no> onar@hsr.no (Onar Aam) writes:
}>}>13.  If planets and satellites were once molten masses...they would not have been
}>}>able to
}>}>obtain spherical form, especially those which do not rotate, as Mercury or the 
}>}>moon (with
}>}^^^^^
}>}>respect to its primary)
}>}
}>}
}>}That is simply not true. The moon is rotating (ever heard of earth rise?)
}>}although only slightly. 
}>
}>wobbles, not rotate.  If it rotated, 100% would (eventually) become visable.
}>It doesn't.
}>
}>ref "earthrise".  No, I haven't.  Reference, please.
}>
}This must be the stupidest thing ever written.

You may be in the running...

}Take two balls. Have one revolve around the other without rotating.
}at opposite ends of its orbit, opposite sides of the revolving ball
}will be visable from the perspective of the stationary ball.
}
}In order for only one side of the revolving ball to be visable,
}it must complete exactly one rotation during its revolution

one rotation relative to what?  It doesn't, with respect to its primary - which
was specifically stated.


Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: hyde@cs.dal.ca (Bill Hyde)
Subject: Re: Sagan's <Super Greenhouse>/  Three Strikes
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 18:24:19 GMT

In article <199@fedfil.UUCP>, news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
|> 
|> 
|> 
|> We've all seen the Magellan pictures by now.  They show a planet (Venus)
|> the entire surface of which appears to consist of recent lava flows,



	Then why do the venera pictures show rocks with erosional
	features? How recent are you claiming these lava flows to be?


|> i.e. a new planet.  This is the way in which the earliest stages of
|> earth's development are usually described.

	Not at all.  When the earth was as young as you believe venus
	to be it had no solid surface at all.  Had venera landed
	on such a planet it wouldn't have lasted even as long as it
	did.


	As the earth is believed to have formed from collisions among
	planetesimals (a process requiring several hundred million
	years, so there is no such thing as a time which can
	be labelled the "beginning" of the earth).  In contrast, you
	regard venus as having sprung fully formed from jupiter
	a few thousand years ago.  The two scenarios are not
	comparable and no analogy between the "early earth" and
	"Early Velikovsian Venus" can be drawn.


	[Ted reposts his usual, and oft refuted venus material]

	Why, Ted, I notice you are not posting the hilarious
	Ginenthal-Strabisimus material.  Have you finally realized what
	a fool it makes Ginenthal look?



						Bill Hyde
Department of Oceanography
Dalhousie University,
Halifax, Nova Scotia
hyde@Ice.ATM.Dal.Ca or hyde@dalac
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: cust_ts@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Tero Sand)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Mark's Laws of Biology
Date: 6 Jan 93 07:37:51 GMT
Organization: University of Helsinki

In article <1ichi8INNojs@uwm.edu> markh@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Mark) writes:
>I propose these very general laws on a linkage between procreation, aging and
>complexity:
>
>(1) In all species, over the long term, the average birth rate is equal to the
>    average death rate.
[...]
>(1) is
>obnviously valid).

Is it? I would say it depends on the time span you select.

	Tero Sand

-- 
	EMail: cust_ts@cc.helsinki.fi   or   custts@cc.helsinki.fi
   "I feel most ministers who claim they've heard God's voice are eating
too much pizza before they go to bed at night, and it's really an 
intestinal disorder, not a revelation." - Reverend Jerry Falwell
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: schwartz@groucho.cs.psu.edu (Scott Schwartz)
Subject: Re: Evolutionism as Cultural Imperialism
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 03:27:25 GMT

philjohn@garnet.berkeley.edu (Phillip Johnson) writes:
   Important voices in the academic now see this scientific
   triumphalism as cultural imperialism, and historians of the next
   century may compare our aggressive science educators to the most
   dogmatic missionaries of the 19th century.

That's the reward you get for atomic power, sending men to the moon,
and (someday) developing a vaccine for AIDS.  Thank goodness we have
those important voices to put us in our place.
From: lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: I need transitional knowledge
Date: 12 Jan 93 18:57:00 GMT
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1isqbrINN642@morrow.stanford.edu>, williams@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Tom Williams) writes...
>In article <1993Jan9.045359.13856@panix.com> arandia@panix.com (Joel Arandia) writes:
>> Some creationist guy is buggin me and telling me that
>>Archeopteryx is a MOSAIC form.  I guess he means that just because something
>>has attributes or both bird and reptile doesn't mean that it's related to 
>>either.  Yeah, it does sound stupid, but I can't figure out a good rebutt.
>>And what are the other 'birds' that he tells me are in the same strata?
> 
>  I was curious how this situation came about.  In general when a creationist
>has anything to say about geology he's referring to one of a few dozen of
>the old chestnuts that were first mangled into a pseudo-logical form by
>creation 'scientists' and then used over and over again by creationists
>who know little or nothing about geology.
> 
> The 'ammunition' your creationist friend thinks he's found may in 
>some way be related to this article.  
> 
>TITLE:          Recent debate over Archaeopteryx
>AUTHORS:        Clausen, Venus E. (Loma Linda Univ., Geosci. Res. Inst., Loma
>                  Linda, CA, USA)
>PUBLICATION:    1986.
>                IN:  Origins (Loma Linda) ; Vol. 13, No. 1, p. 48-55
>THESAURUS:  West Germany, paleontology, Aves, Archaeornithes, Jurassic,
>   Archaeopteryx, Solnhofen Limestone, Germany, Central Europe, Europe, Upper
>   Jurassic, biologic evolution, creationism, philosophy, bones, feathers,
>   fossilization, Eichstatt, Bavaria
>NOTES:  GeoRef ID:  87-12551  (GSA 87-08927)
>   ISSN  0093-7495
>   Coden:  ORIGDU
> 
> I'm very curious what the article says, but our libraries don't carry
>this journal.  (I'm itching to make a snide remark here).
> 
> I'm also curious about this journal. I searched the Bibliography and Index
>of Geology (GEOREF) for articles referring to creationism.  Many of the
>ones that came up are in this journal.  Most seem to have a creationist
>bent.

_Origins_ is published by the Geoscience Research Institute, a Seventh-Day
Adventist creationist organization.

Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
From: abeggs@peg.pegasus.oz.au
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 11 Jan 93 14:59 EST
Subject: VELIKOVSKY UPDATE--Intro
Nf-ID: #N:peg:567900001:000:2417
Nf-From: peg.UUCP!abeggs    Jan 11 14:59:00 1993



VELIKOVSKY UPDATE--Introduction

It was Immanuel Velikovsky's claim in "Worlds in Collision"
that the spectacle of VENUS AS A COMET-LIKE BODY MARAUDING
ABOUT THE HEAVENS was once witnessed by ancient cultures all
around the globe.

The next 4 postings (VELIKOVSKY UPDATE--One, Two, Three, Fnotes)
comprise an article recently published in AEON, a Journal of
Myth and Science.

The article shows that the EVIDENCE in favour of Venus' comet-
like past is far more pervasive than Velikovsky ever imagined.

It was Velikovsky's thesis that many ancient myths commemorate
spectacular cataclysms associated with the various planets.
Ev Cochrane shows strong support for this radical view--evidence
from the mythology and astronomy of both the Old World and the
New World.

In Ev Cochrane's words:
"A Golden Age at the dawn of time was recalled as the well-
spring of civilization and deemed to be the gift of Saturn
for the simple reason that spectacular events associated with
the period of that planet's dominance provided the
"divine" inspiration for the origin and development of cities,
laws, religious rites, systems of writing, etc."

"Our entire conception of the recent history of the
solar system--not to mention celestial mechanics and a host
of other sciences--is fated to be turned upside down."

The title of the article is:
TOWARDS A SCIENCE OF MYTHOLOGY: VELIKOVSKY'S CONTRIBUTION

The author is:   Ev Cochrane

The article was originally published in November 1992 in:
*** AEON--A Symposium on Myth and Science ***  Vol.III, No.1.
Available from 2326 Knapp, AMES, IOWA, 50010, USA
(subscription: $US40).

The electronic version of the article was prepared by:
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*          ===              Efemeral Research Foundation    *
*       //  |  \\            Exploring the Saturn Myth      *
*     //    |    \\                                         *
*    ||-----o-----||                                        *
*     \\    |    //         Internet:  abeggs@peg.apc.org   *
*    //\ \..|../ /                                          *
*   ||  `../.\..'   AARNet/ACSNet: abeggs@peg.pegasus.oz.au *
*   `=''  /   \                                             *
*        /     \              APC Networks:  peg.abeggs     *
*       /       \                                           *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: alc@netcom.com (Chris Stassen)
Subject: Re: Evolution implied by the Bible
Reply-To: stassen@alc.com
Organization: The Lion's Den, San Jose
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 15:24:53 GMT

What's happened so far:  Rich Harter made a joke posting about
inheritance of "original sin."  Several people couldn't tell
that it was a joke.

There are actually serious creationist works on the same topic.
In front of me is a "technical" article on the "sin mutation"
which changed Adam and Eve's genotypes during the Fall, how this
is inherited by everyone, and how Christ was created without it.

See:  Anderson, Albert S., 1992.  "Magnificent Miracle: The Virgin
Conception of Jesus" in _Creation Research Society Quarterly_
Volume 29 Issue 2, pp. 89-97.

You can get _CRSQ_ 29:2 for $6.00 (+ $0.50 shipping) from:

	Glen W. Wolfrom, Membership Secretary
	Creation Research Society
	P.O. Box 28473
	Kansas City, MO  64118
-- 
Chris Stassen						stassen@alc.com
DISCLAIMER:  My employer's account, but not their opinions.
From: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Evolutionism as Cultural Imperialism
Keywords: OB
Date: 13 Jan 93 04:43:31 GMT
Organization: animal -- coelomate -- deuterostome

In article <1ivqrv$fdq@agate.berkeley.edu> philjohn@garnet.berkeley.edu (Phillip Johnson) writes:

[deletions]

>     Further comment: If one wants to persuade people, as opposed
>to merely browbeating them, one has to start by achieving a
>sympathetic understanding of their point of view.

A couple quick questions:

1.) Do you think that you have an understanding of the theory of
evolution? What sources (if any) did you consult in your research
into evolutionary biology?

I ask because, on reading your book, I found little that had any
resemblance to evolutionary theory. 

2.) Would you like to discuss the scientific merits of your work
("Darwin on Trial") on a point by point basis? 

I know a little about evolution and believe your book is seriously
in error on several points. We could start at the beginning or you
could pick your best argument (in your opinion) and we could work
from there.

>Phillip E. Johnson

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,talk.religion.misc
From: watson@sce.carleton.ca (Stephen Watson)
Subject: Re: YOUNG EARTHERS _AND_ BIBLE CRITICS WATCH OUT! (huh?)
Organization: Carleton University
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 05:54:35 GMT

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

>In article <1992Dec31.163626.18541@medtron.medtronic.com>, ds0007@medtronic.COM (Dale Skiba) writes:
>|> Jon Livesey (livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com) wrote:
>|> : In article <MMEYER.92Dec30130453@m2.dseg.ti.com>, mmeyer@m2.dseg.ti.com (Mark Meyer) writes:
[earlier inclusions deleted]
>I wonder if you missed my point here.   I'm not complaining about Ross'
>knowledge of Science.

>I'm saying that he acquired his knowldge of Science *first*, and then
>used it to reinterpret the Bible.    

>He takes verses of poetry from the Bible and says "Well, in terms of
>modern Science, here's what this *really* says".    With Ross' method,
>you can get any fit you like.

Jon is correct that Ross' method, being essentially circular, is
useless as far as proving the existence of God, or the historical
reliability of Genesis.  BUT, if some reasonable fit is *possible*
(not necessarily established as the Truth(tm)) does it not therefore
provide an alternative to treating Genesis as all poetry-and-allegory?
Just a thought.

>If you remember back a month or two, Kalki did the same thing with
>some of his Holy books, telling us that a thunderbolt was an ICBM,
>and a flaming arrow was an anti-aircraft missile, and so on.   Anyone
>can do this, provided said Holy Book is old enough and poetic enough.

Gee, I missed that.  Almost makes me sorry I'm ignoring any threads
with a high Kalki Kontent. ;-)
--
==Steve Watson: watson@sce.carleton.ca===Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario==
| The above is the output of a 7th-order Markovian analysis of all posts on   |
| this group for the past month.  Not only is it not Carleton's opinion, it's |
| not even *my* opinion: it's really just a mish-mash of all YOUR opinions!   |