HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles)
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 92 13:10:10 EST
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor

In article <VwDFuB9w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
>cust_ts@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Tero Sand) writes:
>
>> In article <8gV9TB8w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
>> >weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:
>> >
>> >> In article <7ZD4TB3w165w@kalki33>, kalki33!system@lakes writes:
>> >> 
>> >> >> >Read the book.
>> >> 
>> >> >Read the book.
>> >> 
>> >> Is this your new chant?
>> >
>> >We think you're a chicken, bwak, bwak, bwak! Come on, you yellow-bellied
>> >pseudo scientist. Put up them dukes! Awwww, does duh poor baby want
>> >momma to take away dat nasty pwoof? Awwww, don't cwy, baby! Momma will
>> >make dem nasty cweationists all go away. Den baby can have his bottle!
>> 
>> I think it is time for you to leave, Kalki, or you might end up on a
>> funny farm.
>
>Oh, yes, your brilliant psychological insight has finally uncovered the
>long awaited truth: those who are "sane" avoid anything that calls their
>world-view into question. Better to believe a lie than have self-doubts!
>
>Prabhu, it's time for you to surrender to God, or you might end up in
>the body of an animal in your next life. That makes the funny farm seem
>like Club Med.
>
>Sincerely,
>Kalki "It's time to play...What's Your Karma!!" Dasa
>
>
>
>       -------------------------------------------------------
>      |  Don't forget to chant:   Hare Krishna Hare Krishna   |
>      |                           Krishna Krishna Hare Hare   |
>      |                           Hare Rama Hare Rama         |
>      |                           Rama Rama Hare Hare         |
>      |                                                       |
>      |   Kalki's Infoline BBS Aiken, South Carolina, USA     |
>      |        (kalki33!kalki@lakes.trenton.sc.us)            |
>       -------------------------------------------------------


Sincerely,

Ray Ingles                  || The above opinions are probably
                            || not those of the University of
ingles@engin.umich.edu      || Michigan. Yet.
Xref: sparky talk.origins:14232 comp.ai.philosophy:6807
From: avl0@cine88.cineca.it
Newsgroups: talk.origins,comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: The Meaning of (A) Life
Date: 16 Nov 92 10:54:51 +0100
Organization: CINECA, Italian Interuniversity comp. centre

In article <1992Nov15.230048.26012@u.washington.edu>, zzz@byron.u.washington.edu (Sample) writes:
> Logic can only be produced from a 
> subjective view point.  Scientists 
> claim to be objective when, in fact, 
> they're just putting themselves
> "in others shoes".
> 
> Good and bad, black and white, only
> have meaning from =A= subjective view.
> 
> The meaning of =A= life is it's "subjective view"
> 
> To ask "what is the meaning of life?" is to
> hope to be objective -- and no logic, no 
> information, can come from objectivity -- so
> the question can't be answered.
From: ccw@prefect.cc.bellcore.com (wood,christopher)
Subject: Re: Would you believe anyway ???
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Distribution: world, public
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 92 23:43:55 GMT

In article <1992Nov20.050441.21025@nmsu.edu> sdoe@nmsu.edu (Stephen Doe) writes:
>In article <D0kDuB1w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
>>esot@troi.cc.rochester.edu (Eric Sotnak) writes:

>>> Besides, like many others, I've gone through the sincere questing and come
>>> up empty.

>>It is not possible that your quest was both sincere and unsuccessful.

>>Sincerely,

Not!

>>Kalki Dasa

>I can't speak for Eric, but my own search was both sincere and
>unsuccessful.  I am offended by your facile remark above.  

>SD

As was mine, and am I

Chris

-- 
Chris Wood     Bellcore     ...!bellcore!prefect!ccw
                         or ccw@prefect.cc.bellcore.com
From: schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher)
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 01:59:09 GMT
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
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.

In <N43HuB3w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
>spontaneously generating from the meat. Finally some far-seeing person
>noticed that flies were visiting the meat before the maggots appeared,
>so after some experiments, it was finally realized that the meat was
>incapable of producing maggots. The maggot-eggs were deposited in the
>meat by flies.

Funny how this breakthrough was achieved by icky old linear-thinking,
reductionist, godless Western science, and not Vedic science. I'm sure
you can easily clear up this conundrum for us.
From: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 92 02:56:57 EST
Reply-To: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Organization: Kalki's Infoline BBS, Aiken, SC, USA

TMakinen writes:

> In article <J3Z9TB13w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
> >
> >We get, as our payment, the pleasure of seeing self-proclaimed "rational
> >thinkers" turn into the slavering, boot-licking, do-anything-to-be-right
> >cowards they really are. While they snidely boast that they are far
> >above our level of intelligence, and that they are not going to bother
> >reading any book that conflicts with their delusion that they evolved
> >from chickens, they nevertheless post at least 50 times a day their
> >denials that they are going to pay any attention to us!
> 
> When I have calculated a complicated scattering problem all night long so tha
> it is hard to distinguish between the table and the papers, and still there i
> that missing detail that prevents me from finding the solution, a small voice
> chants in my ear: "Boy are you a stupid moron". As I then sit by the computer
> and log in, that very moment the screen fills with a bunch of new articles fr
> you (pl). When I read the first one, all my sorrow is gone as the yesterday
> wind. If there is somebody so phenomenally stupid as you then I have nothing 
> all to worry about. Please don't tell that you are just kidding in order to
> create some action in this newsgroup.
> 
> Still you are more boring every time you write. As soon as you stop to procla
> bogus facts which are so easy to shoot down and escape to vague analogues and
> something like that one above I drop this trail.

Who cares about your personal problems?

Sincerely,
Kalki Dasa


       -------------------------------------------------------
      |  Don't forget to chant:   Hare Krishna Hare Krishna   |
      |                           Krishna Krishna Hare Hare   |
      |                           Hare Rama Hare Rama         |
      |                           Rama Rama Hare Hare         |
      |                                                       |
      |   Kalki's Infoline BBS Aiken, South Carolina, USA     |
      |        (kalki33!kalki@lakes.trenton.sc.us)            |
       -------------------------------------------------------
From: isaak@aurora.com (Mark Isaak)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Date: 18 Nov 92 17:46:36 GMT
Reply-To: isaak@aurora.com (Mark Isaak)
Organization: The Aurora Group

In article <uRw9TB11w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
>isaak@aurora.com (Mark Isaak) writes:
>
>> In article <uVF4TB6w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
>> >Yes, we agree that if matter is somehow manipulated under the control of
>> >a sufficiently advanced computer program . . . then the body of a living
>> >organism can be formed out of simple materials.
>> >But the best computer in the universe will do nothing without being
>> >programmed, . . .
>> 
>> Then, do you believe that the conditions within the Tierra simulation
>> were more complex (i.e., had a higher information content) than the
>> conditions on a primordial Earth?  You seem to have a great deal more
>> respect for a single programmer's ability than I do!
>
>Perhaps you have not met the programmer who designed your brain.

The Tierra simulation shows that, given some relatively simple initial
conditions, the only manipulations needed to produce life are random.
Yes, I have met Random.
-- 
Mark Isaak           "Every generation thinks it has the answers, and every
isaak@aurora.com      generation is humbled by nature." - Philip Lubin
From: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 92 04:23:46 EST
Reply-To: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Organization: Kalki's Infoline BBS, Aiken, SC, USA

colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby) writes:

> >We find the low probability unacceptable,
> 
> So, a low probability is unacceptable but a miracle is okey-dokey?
> Nice thinking big shooter.

What do you mean by "miracle"?

Sincerely,
Kalki Dasa


       -------------------------------------------------------
      |  Don't forget to chant:   Hare Krishna Hare Krishna   |
      |                           Krishna Krishna Hare Hare   |
      |                           Hare Rama Hare Rama         |
      |                           Rama Rama Hare Hare         |
      |                                                       |
      |   Kalki's Infoline BBS Aiken, South Carolina, USA     |
      |        (kalki33!kalki@lakes.trenton.sc.us)            |
       -------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: jgacker@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker)
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Organization: Goddard Space Flight Center
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 18:26:48 GMT

: The problem with proving our alternative explanation of the origin of
: life is as follows:
: 
: Our hypothesis (that God is the origin of life) is not accepted by
: materialistic science, which claims that the existence of God is not
: within the realm of observation. This is false. God can, and has been,
: observed. When we describe specific methods for observing the existence
: of God, materialistic science refuses to adopt those methods, and
: thereby never succeeds in observing God. Not caring to admit that it has

	I'd just like to point out that if modern science or materialistic
science or whatever you call it can prove the existence of God, then
it's not my God -- based on my understanding of Scripture.  It's a
matter of faith.

: not tried our methods, materialistic science instead claims that we are

	Guess I'll be the first -- please describe said methods,
including peer-reviewable algorithms, and enough documentation to
allow duplication of the experimental method in a separate laboratory.
	Thank you.


: simply making unfalsifiable assertions about the existence of a
: nonmaterial entity. We therefore have no other choice than to conclude
: that materialistic science has made up its mind that it does not want
: God involved in its program, but prefers to try to explain all phenomena
: as the products of matter and mechanism alone.

	Your conclusion here is correct.  Science is rigorous.


: This program is
: unfortunately doomed to failure, since it is not possible to both
: explain all phenomena and omit some of them at the same time.
: 
	The impossible just takes a little longer, Kalki.

	Jim Acker
	jgacker@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov
From: esot@troi.cc.rochester.edu (Eric Sotnak)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Would you believe anyway ???
Date: 23 Nov 92 18:29:26 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York

In <VosmuB4w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:

>sdoe@nmsu.edu (Stephen Doe) writes:

>> >It is not possible that your quest was both sincere and unsuccessful.
>>  
>> I can't speak for Eric, but my own search was both sincere and
>> unsuccessful.  I am offended by your facile remark above.  

>Our reply to you is the same. We respectfully suggest that you reexamine
>your entire searching method, or that you reevaluate your apparent lack
>of success, or both.

>Those who are sincere never give up under any circumstances until they
>have found what they are looking for.

  In riposte, may I suggest that you reevaluate the character and features
of the experiences that you take to confirm belief that God exists.  You
seem to be claiming that you have had experiences which are such that there
is NO POSSIBILITY of error in your interpretation of such experiences. 
While it is quite easy for you to claim to have had such experiences, there
is no reason for me (for one) to believe you.
  As for your claim that those who are sincere in their quest never give up
until they find what they are looking for:  May I ask what happens in one
sincerely looks for something which does not exist?  Will you say that
someone who decides that they have sincerely sought Santa Claus and come up
empty is not sincere because they failed to find Santa Claus?  Or would you
agree that there are reasonable criteria by which one may decide that the
sought-for object simply does not exist?  Perhaps such criteria are
fallible.  But that, it seems to me, is no reason to impugn the sincerity of
the search.
  And while you are free to suggest a method which you take to be an
infallible means for finding God, whether I agree to follow that method or
not will depend on whether I think the method has any reasonable prospect of
yielding successful results.  If I tell you that you will surely find Santa
Claus if you will only coat your head with peanut butter and chant "Skippy
skippy skippy, it's real nifty" 50 times each night for a year, you would be
quite reasonable in deciding that there is no legitimate ground for
supposing such a method to be promising.  But, by all means, do tell us what
the infallible means you have for finding God is, provided it's not as
patently silly as the peanut butter method I've suggested, or as impossibly
vague as "open your heart" or "be REALLY sincere."

--
********************************************************************
Eric Sotnak                   |  One life.
esot@troi.cc.rochester.edu    |  One chance.
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: What is consciousness?
Date: 23 Nov 1992 21:49:45 GMT
Organization: sgi
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <TmumuB10w165w@kalki33>, kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
|> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
>
> > Could you please outline the procedure you use to decided which
> > replies are 'useless"?    A reply might be useless to you, and
> > yet illuminate points for other t.o readers.
>
> Since I am no longer going to try to answer every single reference to my
> posts, the number of replies that are useless to me will decrease.
> Others may certainly do as they wish.

I may be missing something here, but I don't think that this
answers the question.

jon.
From: alanf@tekig6.PEN.TEK.COM (Alan M Feuerbacher)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: design in living organisms
Date: 18 Nov 92 17:31:58 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <1992Nov18.123429.6757@city.cs> lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun) writes:
> [....]
>This is a sad consequence of mankind's rebellion against God,
>aka the Fall.
>Genesis 3:16
>16. Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy
>    conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy
>    desire hall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
>
>Your description of difficult childbirth is correct, and is just one
>example of many things in creation which were originally perfectly
>designed, but have been corrupted because of the Fall.

So you're saying that God changed Eve's genetic makeup so that she
became unable to bear children without extreme pain?  Is this
consistent with a loving God?

Is it consistent with God's explicit statement that if Adam and Eve
disobeyed him they would die, *not* be genetically damaged?

Alan Feuerbacher
alanf@atlas.pen.tek.com

Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: onar@hsr.no (Onar Aam)
Subject: Re: Information in a system.
Organization: Rogaland University Centre
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 10:42:21 GMT


>> And the
>> first source of electric power to just hook itself up to your house and
>> start generating 60hz, 117 VAC!
>
>  the computer runs on AC, but the creatures do not.  They are virtual data
>structures, and as such exist only in theory: they have no form and thus use no
>energy.
>

Uhhm... I don't quite agree with you on that. The structures are for real, but
they are independent of the medium and dimensions in which they occur. That's 
what information is all about. If I continue your logic then the information in 
genes doesn't "really" exist. Genes are merely a bunch of atoms. See? Information 
is by nature an abstract concept. 
Also the order which arose in your program is very much associated with energy.
In computers a clockcycle of the processor is associated with an energy unit. 
(Hence the frequency of the processor is associated with the effect) The order
in your program probably did not arise immediately since the process towards order
is iterative. So instead of spending energy directly, it spent processor time 
which in this case is roughly equivalent with energy. 




Onar.




   
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher)
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Organization: CONVEX Computer Corporation, Richardson, Tx., USA
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 00:58:58 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.

Considering the stylistic variations in "his" posts, it appears that
Kalki is at least three different people.

Can anyone provide an English translation of the words "Kalki Dasa"?
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: sjchmura@kimbark.uchicago.edu (steven joseph chmura)
Subject: Re: Bad design and vestigial organs
Reply-To: sjchmura@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 20:12:32 GMT

In article <By4oI3.Hv1@access.digex.com> huston@access.digex.com (Herb Huston) writes:
>In article <1992Nov21.013411.17810@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>>	Human toes. Our feet have toes, one of which is big and
>>slightly separated from the others. For walking, there is no special
>
>There's also the vermiform appendix.  How odd to have a vestigial cellulose-
							^%^^^^^^^^^
>digesting organ in an animal whose gut can't digest cellulose.
>
>-- Herb Huston
>-- huston@access.digex.com

I think that term is overused when it comes to the apendix.  THe 
"Vestigial appendix" is a great source of lymph patches in humans.

-- 
________________________________________________________________________________Steven Chmura				University of Chicago Medical School(M1)
  "Given enough time, the impossible becomes probable, and the probable
	inevitable.."  -George Wald, "On the Origins of Life"
From: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: a message to Kalki and his tapeworm
Date: 17 Nov 92 01:59:39 GMT
Organization: animal -- coelomate -- deuterostome

In article <m438TB6w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
>colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby) writes:

>> In my college physics course, the prof told us there was no good
>> explanation of gravity. The phenemena was well established, but no
>> mechanism was known

>So, then your point is that abiogenesis is "well established" like the
>existence of gravity?

No, my point was a mechanism is not always needed for a phenomena to
be accepted. Do you still maintain this is the case?

>Can you show me abiogenesis in action?

No, I can't. Can you show me special creation in action?

>> PS Say hi to your tapeworm from me.

>I do not know what you mean by this remark. If it has some significance,
>then perhaps you would explain it.

It is ripened with the utmost significance. If you read my book (20$ US)
it is all clearly spelled out. I haven't given myself permission to
post it on the net.

>Kalki

Don't forget to chant: Rah Rah Ree/Kick 'em in the knee
			Rah Rah Rass/Kick 'em in... the other knee

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"
From: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: What is consciousness?
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 92 03:56:49 EST
Reply-To: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Organization: Kalki's Infoline BBS, Aiken, SC, USA

TMakinen writes:

> In article <aFc5TB5w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
> >Yes, it is a crude example. Another example is the car and the driver.
> >The car has tinted windows, so no one can see in and know for sure that
> >there is a driver inside. But those who understand cars know that the
> >car is moving because there is a conscious driver inside who is
> >steering, etc.

> Yes, it is a crude example. Another example is the factory robot and the
> driver.
> The robot has closed covering, so no one can see in and know for sure that
> there is a driver inside. But those who understand robots know that the
> robot is moving because there is a conscious driver program inside who is
> steering, etc.

No. Those who understand robots know that the robot was programmed by an
intelligent being, and that is why it is moving.

Sincerely,
Kalki Dasa


       -------------------------------------------------------
      |  Don't forget to chant:   Hare Krishna Hare Krishna   |
      |                           Krishna Krishna Hare Hare   |
      |                           Hare Rama Hare Rama         |
      |                           Rama Rama Hare Hare         |
      |                                                       |
      |   Kalki's Infoline BBS Aiken, South Carolina, USA     |
      |        (kalki33!kalki@lakes.trenton.sc.us)            |
       -------------------------------------------------------
From: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 92 04:18:40 EST
Reply-To: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Organization: Kalki's Infoline BBS, Aiken, SC, USA

kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:

> How can we know that consciousness is a property of life if your only definit
> is that it is a property of life and it cannot be measured?  What evidence do
> you have to back up this rather bold assertion?

The quality and intensity of consciousness can be assessed by other
consciousness, but not by any material measuring device. As far as I
know, they cannot be given simple numerical values.

>   Uh, I believe "prabhu" is Hindi, shishya.

Yes, "prabhu" may also be a Hindi word, but it is definitely Sanskrit.

Sincerely,
Kalki Dasa


       -------------------------------------------------------
      |  Don't forget to chant:   Hare Krishna Hare Krishna   |
      |                           Krishna Krishna Hare Hare   |
      |                           Hare Rama Hare Rama         |
      |                           Rama Rama Hare Hare         |
      |                                                       |
      |   Kalki's Infoline BBS Aiken, South Carolina, USA     |
      |        (kalki33!kalki@lakes.trenton.sc.us)            |
       -------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.origins