HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jgacker@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (Class Guest3)
Subject: Re: Progressive Creationism Part 6
Organization: Goddard Space Flight Center
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 14:39:35 GMT

William E. Hamilton CS50 CS/50 (hamilton@hydra.cs.gmr.com) wrote:

: 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. 
	Copyright 1982.
 
: 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. 
	
	Absolutely.  That's why I wanted to ask Gish about this next
weekend, but I won't be here!  Sob.

: 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.
	A friend of mine is going to 10th Presbyterian and visits
back here often.  He's a medical doctor and might have an open mind.
Maybe I could give him a hand-delivered letter.

: 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. 

	Copyright 1982, I don't think the Paluxy mantracks had been
definitively disproven.
	As an afterthought, though Boice presents Young's arguments 
against The Flood, he still gives more possible evidence for it, perhaps
an offering to the ICR folks.  He leans toward a global flood of short
duration, citing evidence such as huge fossil-bone collections.  I would 
have thought, based on the creationism discussion, he would have supported
the local-flood hypothesis.  Oh well.
	(I still think it's race memory of when the Mediterranean 
refilled, and yet I hear no one supporting that theory.  Shoot me 
down, guys.  Too early?)

	Jim Acker
	jgacker@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov
From: mrl@st-andrews.ac.uk (  Michael Ladomery)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Real issues for Antti
Date: 3 Oct 92 12:19:25 GMT
Organization: St. Andrews University, Scotland.

In article <1992Sep30.160547.15862@hemlock.cray.com> robd@cherry09.cray.com (Robert Derrick) writes:
>Antti Siivonen (asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi) wrote:
>: 
>: 	No - and that is the biggest problem we have with evolution. I follow
>: 	the universal rule that Great Dane and Chihuahua are only races of 
>: 	dogs, were there intermediate races or not. 
>
>I wonder if* one of these experienced TAE scientists were to come across
>a Great Dane, a Chihuahua, and let's throw in a one of them floppy all-
>skin Chinese dogs (Shihtzu? - whatever!), and have this brilliant
>naturalist tell us just what process they would use to determine that
>these three disparate creatures were all members of the same species.

Yes, a formidable task given the extreme contrasts between dogs; think of
the hardships the naturalist would face attempting to cross the Dane
with the Chihuahua... er on the other hand, were there a Canine Fertility
Clinic around, what with equipment for in vitro fertilization, this
impossible cross could become reality! In any case, surely if the
beasts were able to reproduce in this way, and if their DNA sequences
were seen to be extremely close (with a degree of variation consistent
with them being "the same species"), and if their anatomical etc etc
details, behavioural patterns etc etc 
 were shown to be pretty much identical, then surely the
naturalist would classify them as the same species? 

I wonder if by throwing into a valley a mixture of chihuahuas and
great danes, closing it off and leaving it for a million years,
one could observe speciation events occurring due to reproductive
isolation?
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: lking@athena.mit.edu (Loren King)
Subject: Re: Cain's wife (was Re: A brief tirade)
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 21:16:19 GMT


In article <1488@esl.ESL.COM>, markwc@barney.esl.com (Mark Christiansen) writes:
|> In article <1992Sep29.204016.29226@athena.mit.edu>
|> lking@athena.mit.edu (Loren King) writes:
|> 
|> >In article <1482@esl.ESL.COM>
|> markwc@barney.esl.com (Mark Christiansen) writes:
|> 
|> >|> In article <1992Sep29.133530.28628@bcrka451.bnr.ca>
|> >|> seanna@bnr.ca (Seanna Watson) writes:
|> 
|> >|> >Amusing conversation (well at least I thought so :)
|> 
|> >|> >Nicky:  Oh.  I guess only God heard the Big Bang.
|> 
|> >|> AMUSING, but perhaps TRUE!
|> 
|> > Well, not literally.  It would be difficult to hear anything before
|> >there is actually a space-time continuum, and it's not clear to me
|> >why God needs ears ...  reminds me a bit of Star Trek V ... "but why
|> >does God need a starship?"
|> 
|> No kidding!


Hey, you brought it up.


|> But perhaps God set off the Big Bang.


Yeah, maybe ............. so, how about those Red Sox?





L. King.
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Subject: Re: Methinks it's like a weasel (Blind Watchmaker)
Organization: University of Joensuu
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 18:57:57 GMT

ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>Actually, Dawkins used his small daughter to type on his Mac for the 
>list of characters in the book. Which reminds me that according to Antti
>there's an impossible chance that a baby will evolve into a mind capable
>of writing books, or what?

	She could have done it better if she would have sat in front of a PC :)

	I admit. It needs the intelligence of a baby to copy that sentence. Only
	cells don't have that intelligence !
-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint

	No ITU, love, evolution.           Tuusniemi ! Siis imein suut !
From: simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: 5 Oct 92 11:56:13 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Warwick University, England

In article <1992Sep30.120831.28903@city.cs> lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun) writes:
>
> At the Stoneleigh Bible Week in Stoneleigh, Coventry, England in
> August this year, there were numerous miracles. There were about
> 10,000 christians gathered for a week.

Sh*t, and I missed it. (Stoneleigh is a small quaintsy village only about
two miles from my office door. I have always been suspicious that weirdness
was afoot, what with there being NO PUBS OR BARS WHATEVER in Stoneleigh.)

Nevertheless, you'd expect 10kX (kiloChristians) witnessing miracles
constantly for a week to cause at least a ripple or two in the local
press and TV. Not a peep did I detect. Curious. Wouldn't having a TV
crew from Central TV around, and getting these miracles covered live
on prime-time TV have been an excellent way of spreading the news?

> Mahesh Chavda amongst others preached and asked people to come to the
> front to be healed. He described the people and their symptoms. We are
> waiting for all the details to come in, because it was suggested that
> written testimonies were handed in, backed up by the person's
> elders that a healind did in fact take place. To avoid just the
> sort of problems you mention.

Gosh, refereed literature.

> I can report on this more if you are interested and if I get more details.
> BTW Mahesh has an international ministry, and said that miracles tended
> to happen more in 3rd world countries where faith is simpler. However he
> said God is going to do it in UK and the USA and other technological
>                         ~~
> countries real soon now. Stay tuned.

What is "it" here?

> Lionel Tun   (lionel@cs.city.ac.uk)
> Vision Group, City University, London, EC1V 0HB. 071-477 8000 x 3889

Cheers

Simon
-- 
Simon Clippingdale                simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk
Department of Computer Science    Tel (+44) 203 523296
University of Warwick             FAX (+44) 203 525714
Coventry CV4 7AL, U.K.
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: macroevolution
Date: 5 Oct 92 00:25:53 GMT
Followup-To: talk.origins
Organization: Apple

In article <1992Sep28.191337.20109@cs.joensuu.fi>, asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi
(Antti Siivonen) wrote:
> 
> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
> >However, note that it's *not* zero. Same with let us say huge stars,
> >the size of a N-size star (let's see: Be A Nice Girl Kiss Me 
> >Right Now) is so big, it's improbable. However the star exists. As
> >I said earlier, we humans have our own narrow view of propabilities
> >and sizes, and this is the problem that is ultimately shown in 
> >narrow-minded religious and scientific theories, especially creationism.
> 
> 	Hey, you gave a good answer ! It's only a matter of belief. 

Ultimately everything is a matter of belief. You show Grand Canyon
to a Creationist and state that this place is the end result of millions
of years, and the Creationist still has faith in an ancient nomadic
mythology of creation. You are right, science also relies on belief,
belief ratified by millions of logically thinking individuals. If you
don't think such cases are valid, do research, publish it and maybe
become the next Nobel price winner. 

Anyway, I would like to see the day when a Creationist wins the price, the
science done by such individuals are justified for their religious belief
systems. It's not founded on practical scientific work.

Kent

	Faith is often the boast of the man who is too lazy to	investigate. -F.M.
Knowles
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: isaak@aurora.com (Mark Isaak)
Subject: Race Memory  (was: Progressive Creationism Part 6)
Summary: Is there such a thing?
Reply-To: isaak@aurora.com (Mark Isaak)
Organization: The Aurora Group
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 92 18:49:24 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.143935.23860@nsisrv.gsfc.nasa.gov> jgacker@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (Jim Acker) writes:
>(I still think it [global flood story] is race memory of when the
>Mediterranean refilled, and yet I hear no one supporting that theory.
>Shoot me down, guys.  Too early?)

My big objection to that theory is that I've never seen any evidence
that such a thing as race memories exist, at least in the sense of
memories we're born with.  If you're talking about stories passed
verbally from generation to generation, then, yes, the Mediterranean
refilling could be a source, but I strongly suspect that that story
would have been lost in the noise of stories of smaller but more recent 
floods ages ago.  Also, the Biblical flood talks about rain, which
wouldn't necessarily be a factor in the Mediterranean flood.

I see no reason to doubt that the story was based on a particularly
large river flood.  Such a flood could easily cover hundreds of suqare
miles, which, to a peasant farmer, would be the whole world.
Creationists say that such an interpretation means I don't believe
the Bible is True, but that interpretation sure makes the Bible look
less silly than the global flood interpretation.
-- 
Mark Isaak           "Every generation thinks it has the answers, and every
isaak@aurora.com      generation is humbled by nature." - Philip Lubin
From: markwc@barney.esl.com (Mark Christiansen)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Question for Creationists
Date: 29 Sep 92 14:52:45 GMT
Organization: ESL Inc., Sunnyvale, CA

In article <1132@tdat.teradata.COM> swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen) writes:
>In article <1457@esl.ESL.COM> markwc@barney.esl.com (Mark Christiansen) writes:
>|
>|Circular arguments do exist for a majority of people; I have not
>|contradicted myself or sidestepped the issue.  I've clarified my
>|position that many people have "faith" in science and the scientist
>|much like many people have faith in religious leaders.
>
>You origianlly stated that 'circular arguments exist in science'
>						     ^^
>
>Well, the people you are talking about, who do not read journal articles,
>or do research, are not *in* science they are *outside* of it.
>
>All your example says is that some people outside of science treat it as
>if it were circular.  This is *not* what you origianlly claimed.

You're right, I should not use the word 'in'.  Truth does not have
circular arguments and Scientists try very hard to base their theories
on observations and non-circular fundamental principles.  This does
not happen for most non-Scientists; they accept the word of the
Scientist because they feel good about them.  Most religious people
accept the word of Religious leaders because they feel good about
then.  This, I believe, is the "blind faith" idea.  To increase ones
faith requires a more indepth study to iliminate the circular
arguments.

Mark
-- 
   We can lick gravity, but sometimes the paperwork is overwhelming.
   -- Wernher von Braun
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: tlode@nyx.cs.du.edu (trygve lode)
Subject: Re: The new and improved Ted - NOT!
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix @ U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 92 06:45:10 GMT

In article <2d9n52k@lynx.unm.edu> rsquires@cyclops.eece.unm.edu (Roger Squires) writes:
>
>	Sorry to get so frustrated, but I put a significant effort  
>into trying to give an understandable explanation in a subject I was  
>familar with (geology), and I might have talked to a wall.  I was  
>honestly hoping the information I presented would be answered in some  
>fashion, because I enjoy discussion, but not a peep.  Now, at least a  
>month later, I see the same statement made again with absolutely _no_  
>changes.

Well, in case it makes you feel better (though I freely admit that I
didn't put in nearly the level of effort that you did), he didn't seem
to notice my pointing out several respects in which his understanding
of powerlifting was seriously flawed either.

Trygve   (Oh, well; perhaps I could arrange a more visceral demonstration
          in my gym.) 
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: Friesen on elastics and sauropod necks
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 20:31:31 GMT

In article <43@fedfil.UUCP>, news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
> He surely meant large land herbivores.  Whales eat animal protein, whether
> plankton or squid and fish in some cases, and that's a different ball game
  ^^^^^^^^
> from what Stan and I were talking about.

  Plankton is an animal?

>  Sauropods ate the same kinds of
> stuff elephants do.

  But did they have the same digestive track?  And how do you know what
dinosaurs ate?

  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?  Surely these mammoths would strike the painter as a more impressive
subject.  Yet, despite plenty of paintings of mammoths, not a single dinosaur. 
(Note: I'm not even restricting it to sauropods)

 |  __L__   *******************************
-|-  ___    * Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub   *
 |  | o |   * kv07@iastate.edu            *
 |/ `---'   * Iowa State University       *
/|   ___    * Math Department             *
 |  |___|   * 400 Carver Hall             *
 |  |___|   * Ames, IA  50011             *
 J  _____   *******************************
From: markwc@barney.esl.com (Mark Christiansen)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Cain's wife (was Re: A brief tirade)
Date: 30 Sep 92 05:43:08 GMT
Organization: ESL Inc., Sunnyvale, CA

In article <1992Sep29.204016.29226@athena.mit.edu>
lking@athena.mit.edu (Loren King) writes:

>In article <1482@esl.ESL.COM>
markwc@barney.esl.com (Mark Christiansen) writes:

>|> In article <1992Sep29.133530.28628@bcrka451.bnr.ca>
>|> seanna@bnr.ca (Seanna Watson) writes:

>|> >Amusing conversation (well at least I thought so :)

>|> >Nicky:  Oh.  I guess only God heard the Big Bang.

>|> AMUSING, but perhaps TRUE!

> Well, not literally.  It would be difficult to hear anything before
>there is actually a space-time continuum, and it's not clear to me
>why God needs ears ...  reminds me a bit of Star Trek V ... "but why
>does God need a starship?"

No kidding!  But perhaps God set off the Big Bang.

Mark
-- 
   We can lick gravity, but sometimes the paperwork is overwhelming.
   -- Wernher von Braun
From: rowe@pender.ee.upenn.edu (Mickey Rowe)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Friesen on elastics and sauropod necks
Date: 5 Oct 92 21:59:24 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <42@fedfil.UUCP> news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:

>2.  The only creature with a neck even remotely similar to a sauropod's in
>    our world is the giraffe, and he holds his neck up for two very good 
>    reasons:  to lessen the torque stress, and to get at high leaves.  The
>    strength of these two motives would have been vastly greater for a
>    sauropod.

As I've pointed out to Ted on two or three previous occasions, not
only are these conclusions unjustified, but the "data" on which he
bases them is downright spurious.

Female giraffes hold their necks horizontal while they eat.  Because
of this, male and female giraffes tend not to compete for the same
resources.  Despite Ted's fantasies, giraffes have little difficulty
supporting their heads with their necks horizontal, even though
they're not mechanically designed for it as diploducids were.  What
giraffes do have difficulty supporting is Ted's arguments.

>Ted Holden
>HTE

Mickey Rowe     (rowe@pender.ee.upenn.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Subject: Methinks it's like a weasel   IMPORTANT !   
Organization: University of Joensuu
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 17:31:57 GMT

skroger@zeus.calpoly.edu (Seth L. Kroger) writes:
>Wrong, Antti.  He clearly states that when life evolved there WAS selection.
>That was how life was even able to occur.  I would suggest that you stop
>misrepresenting Dawkins and pulling probability figures out your posterior
>in the future.

	He did first probability calculations with 'weasel' and got a number.
	Then he multiplied and got the probability, but he didn't say what 
	the probability was. Then he said that it demanded quite much 
	fortune anyways. Also he said that when creationists were asked how
	God has born, they asked that it has always been. In the same way 
	Dawkins said that he can make a claim life has always existed. 

	I see this as a conclusion in our discussion: We are discussing 
	about beliefs, what people believe, not what things are according
	to the science. And this fits perfectly to me - Dawkins himself claims
	that evolutionism is a religion. 
-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint

	No ITU, love, evolution.           Tuusniemi ! Siis imein suut !
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard)
Subject: Re: Friesen on elastics and sauropod necks
Organization: The Turing Project, Charlottesville Virginia.
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 22:35:57 GMT

So lets some evidence for the 30,000lbs, and also some numbers for the
strength of tissues. 

Try doing the same exercise for people, for example the force on the
tendons from the thigh muscles while jumping. Lets assume 2G acceleration
on take off, and a ratio of 6/1 for the bottom half of the leg as a lever
(starting from squating), and a 200lb person. 200*2*6=2400lbs...

So obviously 200lb people can't jump :-)
-- 
------          Join the Pythagorean Reform Church!               .
\    /        Repent of your evil irrational numbers             . .
 \  /   and bean eating ways. Accept 10 into your heart!        . . .
  \/   Call the Pythagorean Reform Church BBS at 508-793-9568  . . . .
    
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Favorite astronomer jokes
Date: 29 Sep 92 02:12:40 GMT
Followup-To: talk.origins
Organization: Apple

In article <36@fedfil.UUCP>, news@fedfil.UUCP (news) wrote:
 It appears obvious to me that the twentieth century American
> scientific community in general and the astronomical profession
> in particular, are, in the next century, going to come in for a
> great deal of opprobrium, calumny, criticism, ridicule, abuse
> etc. etc. for the manner in which Immanuel Velikovsky was dealt
> with and for the steadfast refusal of establishment scientists
> to deal with the emergent discipline of catastrophism until at
> least two generations of them have died out altogether.  Maybe
> the term I want is DISSIN', as in "He was dissin' my woman, so I
> snuffed him out with my Uzzi..."  Our present astronomers are
> going to come in for some DISSIN' in the next century.

I find it intriguing that the only way to counter attack astronomers
of today is using jokes, and not common sense and logic. I think
it should tell us something about the level of seriousness behind those
postings, maybe...

Cheers,
Kent
	Faith is often the boast of the man who is too lazy to	investigate. -F.M.
Knowles
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: Antti dodges reality (take two)
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 23:59:21 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.121428.16289@cs.joensuu.fi>, asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti
Siivonen) writes:
> colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby) writes:
> >Then you were told wrong. They do not interbreed, the two new species
> >(one of which arose three independent times!) have different numbers of
> >chromosomes and do not produce fertile offspring. Once again, you
> >are only proving how astoundingly ignorant you are and the lengths
> >you will go to avoid learning anything about biology.
> 
> 	Am I responsible if I was told wrong ? Still I'm suspicious and want to
> 	stick with living evidence. 

  Two things indicate to me that this is "living evidence".  Firstly, it is hard
to get a chromosome count from a fossil.  Second, I seem to remember the FAQ
saying that this occurred in just the last few decades.

  Secondly, if you don't realise that different chromosome counts absolutely
preclude crossbreeding you know even less biology that I do, and that isn't
much.

> 	Look Tarttu P|llimajandus~likooli archives, 1988 or before. Also 
> 	the zool. mus. of Leningrad can give you information. Also 
> 	"Linki ptitsi vorybenniij v severo-zapade SSSR" by Leningrad 
> 	University can give you some information, though concerning only
> 	passerine moulting times (which is important in order to understand
> 	the migration). 
> 
> 	Never it's said straight, but you get the idea if you go through the
> 	data and think its applications. Also you can contact the ornithological
> 	stations of P{rnu, Kabli, Rossitten and Gdansk, they have field-      
> 	knowledge. 

  I am trying to get in touch with a friend of mine who has an incredible
knowledge on bird life.  But even if he agrees with you, here is another
question:

  How does this cause a problem for evolution?  Think about it, genes don't
select the lead bird, right?  So even if the lead birds suffer higher mortality,
the genes for birds _willing_ to lead gets passed on in the genes of the
relatives.  If a type evolves that refuses to fly lead, they eventually take
over the enclave, fail to migrate properly, and die out.

  What is the problem you see with the above scenario that precludes evolution?

 |  __L__   *******************************
-|-  ___    * Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub   *
 |  | o |   * kv07@iastate.edu            *
 |/ `---'   * Iowa State University       *
/|   ___    * Math Department             *
 |  |___|   * 400 Carver Hall             *
 |  |___|   * Ames, IA  50011             *
 J  _____   *******************************
Newsgroups: talk.origins