HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: AWESOME computer program (Populus)
Date: 7 Nov 92 07:02:16 GMT
Followup-To: talk.origins
Organization: Apple

In article <1992Nov6.111851.29067@city.cs>, lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel
Tun) wrote:
> 
> In article <ksand-051192183202@wintermute.apple.com> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik ) writes:
> >Lionel, why don't we have any computer programs that show that
> >evolution is impossible? 
> 
> Because as usual, you would choose not to believe.
> 
> Example: would you like to take a ride in an Airbus
> whose computer program was modified randomly? Why
> not? After all, the theory of evolution states that
> this is how improvements are generated.

Well, let me ask the question once again, why don't we have any
creationism SW programs that simulate how impossible evolution
actually is? I'm prepared to believe, if I at least get some
evidence, instead of assumptions.

Kent
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: watson@sce.carleton.ca (Stephen Watson)
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Organization: Home for Indigent Bit-Bashers
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 15:38:48 GMT

In article <PJHRTB1w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
>  The probability of evolution of higher life forms by known physical
>processes during a 4.5 billion year period is bounded by an UPPER limit
>of 10e-150000.
[big snip]
>  These statements are from Mechanistic and Nonmechanistic Science, by
>Dr. Richard Thompson. His arguments are based on information theory
>and molecular biology. The proof is straightforward.
                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
So post it.

>Kalki Dasa
-- 
==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!   |
From: dhenry@plains.NoDak.edu (David Henry)
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 05:37:26 GMT
Organization: North Dakota Higher Education Computing Network

In article <1992Nov8.173610@IASTATE.EDU> kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren
Vonroeschlaub) writes:
>In article <w33uTB1w165w@kalki33>, kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
>>watson@sce.carleton.ca (Stephen Watson) writes:
>>> In article <PJHRTB1w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
writes:
>>> >  The probability of evolution of higher life forms by known physical
>>> >processes during a 4.5 billion year period is bounded by an UPPER limit
>>> >of 10e-150000.
>>> [big snip]
>>> >  These statements are from Mechanistic and Nonmechanistic Science, by
>>> >Dr. Richard Thompson. His arguments are based on information theory
>>> >and molecular biology. The proof is straightforward.
>>>                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>> So post it.
>>
>>Read the book.
>
>  We have a rather large engineering department here, and a rather complete
>library, especially in the science fields.  I did a computer search on the
>author Richard Thompson.  There were 21 entries.  2 were live performances
>by a folk singer (albums),

This adds little to the "where is the devestating proof" argument, but
Richard Thompson's albums are, IMO, beautiful. And, unlike some coy
creationists, they are still accessible for public consumption.

Back to the fun at hand...
-- 
David R. Henry - Rogue Fan Club - OBESSA CANTAUIT - Ouch. --Richard Darwin
"Message for TJ Teru." --Roger Robot // What was the question? --Kate Bush
"All you of Earth are IDIOTS!"-P9fOS // Thanks... for the memories.--Rogue
dhenry@plains.nodak.edu * ud137927@ndsuvm1.bitnet * ud137927@vm1.nodak.edu
From: bm90ash@brunel.ac.uk (Adrian S Harvey)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Would you believe anyway ???
Date: 11 Nov 92 13:06:19 GMT
Organization: Brunel University, Uxbridge, UK
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

Question : If God exists, why doesn't He come and tell us?


Would we believe Him if he did ??



Jesus Christ came to this earth ~2000 years ago to tell us that not only did God exist but that he wants to know us.

In true scientific fashion, how do you know that God exists unless you reach out to Him like he asks.

If you really want to find out what is going on then reach out to God with a desire to know Him, then you'll know that He is there...


p.s. Science cannot explain some of the biggest things in life  --  LOVE,

Jesus said that "God is love "  Therefore science cannot explain God  - Simple ......

Adrian Harvey
BM90ash@brunel.ac.uk
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: noah's ark
Date: 7 Nov 92 07:00:22 GMT
Followup-To: talk.origins
Distribution: world,local
Organization: Apple

In article <6NOV199213562188@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu>,
lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) wrote:
> Did Noah's Ark evolve where?  You seem to be of the opinion that
> Noah's Ark has been found.  You are, not surprisingly, wrong
> again.

Jim, wrong, it has been found at least four-five times, even in
different locations on the mountain. Unfortunately we have this
zionist-communist-illuminati conspiracy that tries to hide the
fact.

Kent
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
From: scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu (scharle)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: noah's ark
Date: 6 Nov 92 17:26:23 GMT
Reply-To: scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu (scharle)
Organization: Univ. of Notre Dame

In article <1992Nov6.014323.16147@trl.oz.au>, faris@sarcasm.trl.OZ.AU (Aziz Faris) writes:
    [...much back and forth about Noah's Ark deleted...]
|> This whole business of Noahs ark is nothing but an epic that the bilical
|> writers have borrowed from the ancient Sumerians who lived in Southern Iraq.
|> The epic dates to the 3rd milinium B.C., consult any book on ancient middle
|> east religions and read it. It is even discussed in the Encylopedia Britanica
|> on ancient Middle Eastern religions.
|> 
|> A.Faris

    One book which may be of interest (it is getting quite old, but I
don't think there is anything which supersedes it -- I'd be happy to
hear of others) is

    Ancient Near Eastern Texts: Relating to the Old Testament,
ed. James B. Pritchard, Princeton University Press, 1969

    It gives lots of stories from Sumerian, Babylonian and so on. 
IMHO, the differences are more significant than the similarities, as
it gives some clue as to what the authors of the Biblical texts were
really trying to get across.  I would think that anyone who was
truly interested in what the Bible was about should read at least
some of these other stories.

-- 
Tom Scharle                |cm65n6@irishmvs(Bitnet)
Room G003 Computing Center |scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu(Internet)
University of Notre Dame  Notre Dame, IN 46556-0539 USA
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: jgacker@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker)
Subject: Re: Well oiled doctrine
Organization: Goddard Space Flight Center
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 15:49:14 GMT

Edward C. Goodwin (ecg@po.CWRU.Edu) wrote:

: 1).  Is oil definately known to be of biological origin?  Coal is
: obviously formed from plant material but are there any characteristics
: shared between oil and coal that might suggest a causal link?  Oil
: consists of hydrocarbon chains while coal (I think) has a fair amount
: of graphite and hydrocarbon rings.
	
	There is a debate that oil and gas stem from deep mantle
sources.  The current paradigm is that oil is a "fossil fuel" derived
from prehistoric biota.
	
: 2).  If oil is of biological origin, what happened to all the oxygen
: in carbohydrates (cellulose etc...)?  There must be an incredable 
: reducing environment to strip off these oxygens.
	Not incredible -- just reducing.  A couple of mm down into
anoxic marine sediments most of the oxidizing groups are gone.  
Chris Martens, Bob Berner, and John Morse are some authors who have
done extensive work in this area.  Berner was part of the FOAM group
(Friends Of Anoxic Mud).

: 3).  Can oil formation be traced to any particular era of the earth's
: history?
	I know of one -- the Middle Eastern oil reserves are postulated
to have been generated during mid-Cretaceous superplume volcanism.  
The injection of large amounts of CO2 into the deep sea during this 
period stimulated huge diatom blooms.  The sinking and digestion of this
huge amount of organic matter became those oil reserves.
	Source:  presentation at 1990 AGU Spring Meeting - Baltimore, MD.
(Not mine).

	Jim Acker
	jgacker@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov

: 
: 				Thanks in advance,
: 
: -- 
: Ed Goodwin (1 kyu)			"Facts do not cease to exist
: ecg@po.cwru.edu				 because they are ignored."
: ecg@po.cwru.edu@cunynm (bitnet)		 -Aldous Huxley
: Molecular Biologist to the Stars!
From: hbcs1010@blurt.oswego.edu
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: re: Science is inadequate
Date: 5 Nov 92 19:53:02 GMT
Organization: SUNY College at Oswego, Oswego, NY

unlurking in this newsgroup for just a second........

  i may be wrong, but the way i learned the greenhouse effect, *light* doesn't
have to get to the planet's surface, just heat, of which there is a copious
amount when you're as close to the sun as venus is.

-diedre hauptfuehrer

there's a hell of a universe next door- let's go!
                                                 -e.e. cummings
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: Creation vs. evolution
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 14:03:15 GMT

In article <n0e24t@ofa123.fidonet.org> Richard.Rearden.@.914/901@f8.n10.z1.fidonet.org writes:
}        This is the first time I have even read this net and it is fascinating
}to read the diversity of messages as well as the diversity of origins of the
}messages.  My favorite subject is Creation.  Most of what I read are broken
}conversations, but what I get is that that there is little evidence being
}given
}from either side on this subject, weather scientific or otherwise.

Astounding.  Do you always jump into conversations and deal yourself in
with ignorance on what has been said, using refudiated arguments, or just here?
From: isaak@aurora.com (Mark Isaak)
Subject: Re: Ted cleans up his act
Summary: . . . only to soil it again.
Reply-To: isaak@aurora.com (Mark Isaak)
Organization: The Aurora Group
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 92 23:23:42 GMT

In article <105@fedfil.UUCP> news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
>In article <1992Nov7.120535.28586@smds.com>, rh@smds.com (Richard Harter) writes:
>> Congratulations, Ted, keep up the good work.
> 
>You're deriding me. . .

You're behaving rather defensively, aren't you?  I interpreted Richard's
message as sincere (and deserved) praise.  Derision should be saved for
posts such as this latest one of yours.

>I do, however, keep the following series of quotes  (compiled by Mr.
>Richard D'Ippolitto) around as a kind of standard pablum. . . .
[120 lines of insults deleted]

When I saw this list once a year or so ago, I thought it was rather
one-sided.  So I collected all the insults from postings to talk.origins
for a period of two or three weeks and grouped them by author.  On the
basis of absolute number of insults, Ted Holden was the clear winner.  On
a measure of insults per posting, some infrequent posters surpassed Ted,
but Ted still stayed well above average.

Unfortunately, I didn't save any of the data when I changed jobs, but I
feel confident that the study is repeatable.
-- 
Mark Isaak           "Every generation thinks it has the answers, and every
isaak@aurora.com      generation is humbled by nature." - Philip Lubin
From: lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: noah's ark
Date: 6 Nov 92 20:56:00 GMT
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Nov6.112019.1@woods.ulowell.edu>, cotera@woods.ulowell.edu writes...
>In article <Bx6Dnn.F9r@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>, adpeters@sunflower.bio.indiana.edu (Andy Peters) writes:
>> In article <Hq9NTB1w164w@cellar.org> kml@cellar.org (Scott Tiger) writes:
>>>bkorb@starbase.Convergent.Com (Bruce Korb) writes:
>>>> |> 	The flood did not cover mountains.  It covered a giant fertile
>>>> |> 	valley where humans lived at the time.
> 
>Then how did Noah's Ark get on top of a mountain? Or did it evolve there over 
>the past million years?
>--Ray Cote

Did Noah's Ark evolve where?  You seem to be of the opinion that
Noah's Ark has been found.  You are, not surprisingly, wrong
again.

Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: smullins@cidmac.ecn.purdue.edu (Scott H Mullins)
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 01:49:28 GMT

In article <Pog4TB7w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
>kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu writes:
[deletions]
>>    Sorry, I can't, it's not in our library (hmmm, I wonder why that
>> could be...must be the evilutionist(tm) conspiracy!) and I haven't 
>> got time to go searching through bookstores to find it.  I'm dying 
>> to hear your summary of the proof though.
>
>Then read it in the other posts. And if you really wanted the book, you
>would get it.

Kalki, you'all have gone from promising to post the material to claiming
that you already have in record time, even for a creationist.
>>    Velikovsky had lots of published papers too, didn't he?
>
>Yes, so do Dawkins and Gould. Oh, but then, you AGREE with them, right?
>So their papers REALLY count, right?

Their papers count because they generally write about things that they
know and for which they have gathered evidence.

>Sincerely,
>Kalki Dasa

Scott
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: AWESOME computer program (Populus)
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 23:29:59 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.184833.16734@city.cs>, lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun)
writes:
> OK, I issue a challenge. Take your favourite chess program on
> your favourite computer. Randomly change any number of bits or
> bytes in the program's executable file. If you manage to find
> a random change which makes the program better at chess, I will
> accept it as evidence that significant AND beneficial random
> mutations are possible. Oh, and I'll eat my flat cap.

  Prepare to eat your flat cap.  Genetic algorithms have been used to evolve
good evaluation routines in the past, and given a little time I could probably
drag in the source code for a chess player and alter it to do just that right
before your eyes.

  You have issued a challenge that has already been met.

 |  __L__
-|-  ___  Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub
 |  | o | kv07@iastate.edu
 |/ `---' Iowa State University
/|   ___  Math Department
 |  |___| 400 Carver Hall
 |  |___| Ames, IA  50011
 J  _____
From: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Date: 9 Nov 92 15:00:13 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us

In article <cR6wTB13w165w@kalki33>, kalki33!system@lakes writes:
>But if the bacterium is being pressured by "natural selection" (i.e. a
>hostile environment) to mutate and reproduce or perish, then if it
>doesn't get just the right burst of cosmic rays at the right time, it
>will perish and decompose back into its component chemicals. Is it not
>so?

No.  Not even close.  Crackpot city, in fact.  Bacteria mutate all
by themselves, just by reproducing.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
From: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Date: 11 Nov 92 21:22:17 GMT
Reply-To: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Organization: Kalki's Infoline BBS, Aiken, SC, USA

keithd@well.sf.ca.us (Keith Doyle) writes:
> Kalki Dasa scrawls:
> >  The probability of evolution of higher life forms by known physical
> >processes during a 4.5 billion year period is bounded by an UPPER limit
> >of 10e-150000.
> 
> Wanna see me pull a number out of a hat?  10e-150000.
> 
> Wanna see it again?
> 
> >  The entire history of the earth would have to be repeated over and over
> >again at least 10e150000 times for there to be a substantial chance that
> >higher living entities would evolve even once.
> 
> >  This shows that the standard dogma that evolution of higher life forms
> >will occur "given enough time" is false, at least for any of the
> >current estimates of the earth's age.
> 
> Independent of abiogenesis, these statements are clearly proven false by a
> number of computer programs, the Tierra simulator for one.  Despite the fact
> you have failed to define "higher life form", the Tierra simulator shows
> that significant improvements can occur in mere tens to hundreds of
> generations.  Natural selection accumulates such enhancements over time
> providing a clear vehicle for increase in complexity (nowhere to go but
> up) and for isolated populations to diverge to a degree related to the
> length of time they have been isolated.

Yes, we agree that if matter is somehow manipulated under the control of
a sufficiently advanced computer program --and that necessarily means a
computer programmer too-- then the body of a living organism can be
formed out of simple materials. The more advanced the computer --and
that means the more knowledgable the programmer-- the faster this can be
accomplished. If the programmer is intelligent enough, he can write a
program that will turn stones into bread in a nanosecond!

But the best computer in the universe will do nothing without being
programmed, and it will never be programmed unless a living person comes
along and programs it. And of course the computer will never exist in
the first place unless someone designs and builds it.

So what is your point? That you agree with us that life was caused by an
intelligent being? If not, then what becomes of your computer example?


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: dace@shrike.und.ac.za
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: AWESOME computer program (Populus)
Date: 13 Nov 92 15:31:56 GMT
Organization: University of Natal (Durban), South Africa
NNTP-Posting-Host: shrike.und.ac.za
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

Hi All,

I guess this post may be off-topic for the thread, but not seriously so.
I think what Lionel is trying to challenge is the idea that evolution can
occur, because of the number of lethal mutations which occur.  I can't
say I ever agreed with him, and I have recently found more evidence
against his argument:

In my vacations, I work on a rose farm near here.  We produce cut flowers,
and do a lot of propagation of our own plants.  One of the results of
masses of vegetative propagation of varieties of a species which is not very
genetically stable is that mutations occur.  I have seen several plants
in our fields which have unusual characteristics, which I have not seen
documented anywhere else, as a result of chromosomal abberations.

This could quite possibly be a cause of death for some failed plantlets,
but we see many non-lethal mutations, and it is very conceivable that,
given the greater variability afforded by sexual reproduction, and the
correspondingly greater number of mutations which occur, that lots & lots
of non-lethal or beneficial mutations have occured in the past.

Yes, I know this is common knowledge, but I was just trying to point out
that Lionel's argument is utterly pointless.

	-Hal 
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, 6 Nov 1992 15:22:17 GMT

kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us wrote:
: 
:   The probability of evolution of higher life forms by known physical
: processes during a 4.5 billion year period is bounded by an UPPER limit
: of 10e-150000.
: 
:   The entire history of the earth would have to be repeated over and over
: again at least 10e150000 times for there to be a substantial chance that
: higher living entities would evolve even once.
: 
:   This shows that the standard dogma that evolution of higher life forms
: will occur "given enough time" is false, at least for any of the
: current estimates of the earth's age.
: 
:   These statements are from Mechanistic and Nonmechanistic Science, by
: Dr. Richard Thompson. His arguments are based on information theory
: and molecular biology. The proof is straightforward.
: 
: Sincerely,
: Kalki Dasa

	#1, Kalki, you will now be asked to provide the straightforward
proof so that it can be cut into little itsy-bitsy pieces.

	I am extremely disappointed that my travels in the next week
will not allow me to witness this extraordinary process.  In all
sincerity, I wish I could watch.
	Would somebody kindly archive the better rounds of the
"Dasa dissection" so I can at least see a highlight file?

	Thanking you in advance,

	Jim Acker
	jgacker@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov

(Gentlemen, start your keyboards!  Remember, a proper warmup is necessary
to prevent finger-cramping during excessive flaming.)
From: robd@cherry09.cray.com (Robert Derrick)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: What is consciousness?
Date: 9 Nov 92 20:09:53 GMT
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

Mark Isaak (isaak@aurora.com) wrote:
: In article <BxFort.3rs@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> adpeters@sunflower.bio.indiana.edu (Andy Peters) writes:
: >In article <1992Nov9.014549.6456@aurora.com> isaak@aurora.com (Mark Isaak) writes:
: >>Seriously, death isn't such a great mystery as you make it out to be.  Heart
: >>and lung function rely on a complicated arrangement of neutrons in the brain
:                                                          ^^^^^^^^
: >I assume you mean neurons?
: 
: Ack!  Yes, I mean neurons.  Although in my case, the neurons don't seem
: to be functioning, so I don't know what word would be appropriate for me.
: 

Neurons, Neutrons!  Carbohydrates, Hydrocarbons!

Picky petty bitchiness, if you ask me.


But I do have a real question:

Is the "Kalki" a group of people, a consciousness continuum, or a king?

I mean, what is all this "We" jazz?

Would the "Kalki" care to elucidate?

And I will gladly refrain from ragging on you until I have read
"The" book.  Will you please mail me a copy, as it is currently
not available on any planes of existness that I am inhabiting
at this time.

Or should I have said "we"?  We are so confused.
--

rob derrick				robd@cherry.cray.com