HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: seanna@bnr.ca (Seanna Watson)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Cain's wife (was Re: A brief tirade)
Date: 29 Sep 92 13:35:30 GMT
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada

In article <1992Sep28.155019.26448@nsisrv.gsfc.nasa.gov> jgacker@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker) writes:
>Ken Stuckas (Ken.Stuckas@f2020.n112.z1.fidonet.org) wrote:
>
>: Or another question I have never gotten any response to -
>: 
>: "If God created Adam and then Eve and they had (among others) two kids named Cain and Abel, and Cain slew Abel and was kicked out of town whereupon he found himself a wife and married her, who the hell did he marry???"
>
>	Hey, you wanted an answer, right?  I actually think he hurts his
>case here.  Cain didn't have to marry a full sister -- he could have
>waited a few generations while he was wandering and married a second 
>cousin or something.
>	This is absurd extensionalism, but hey, now you've got an answer.

Cain could not have had a second cousin--second cousins are in the same
generation, and share great-grandparents.  Obviously, there were no great
grandparents to share.  In Cain's generation, there were *only* brothers
and sisters.  In order for Cain to marry someone from a subsequent
generation, at least one brother and sister would have had to marry.

(But I think Genesis is not to be taken literally anyway.)

--------------

Amusing conversation (well at least I thought so :)

Nicky (5):  Did the people in the olden days hear the Big Bang?

Me: No, there weren't any people around when the Big Bang happened.

Nicky:  Oh, I guess the dinosuars heard the Big Bang.

Me: No, there weren't any dinosaurs then, either.

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

-- 
Seanna Watson   Bell-Northern Research, 
(seanna@bnr.ca) Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Opinions, what opinions?  Oh *these* opinions. | Occam's razor split 
No, they're not BNR's, they're mine.           | hairs so well, I bought 
I knew I'd left them somewhere.                | the whole argument.
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: Favorite astronomer jokes
Organization: LLNL
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 22:31:48 GMT


	[A lot of Ted Holden "astronomer jokes" deleted...]

	It looks like Ted Holden thinks astronomers are fair game for
boorish ridicule. And as Matt Brinkman comments, not even very
worthwhile ridicule when there are better astronomer jokes around,
like who puts error bars on their exponents.

	Now, I'll give the Tedster a taste of his own medicine:


	Why did Velikovsky put kerosene in his coffee?

	Because he thought that hydrocarbons and carbohydrates were
one and the same.


Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: prl@csis.dit.csiro.au (Peter Lamb)
Subject: Re: Real issues for Antti
Organization: CSIRO Division of Information Technology
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 22:10:07 GMT

asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:

>	No, I said the probability of evolution is 

>			1
>		----------------
>			350,000
>		      10

Antti, this is getting very silly. On what basis do you tell us that
the probability of evolution happening just happens to be the same as
a monkey sitting down and typing the whole of Shakespeare's works (including
or excluding the sonnets?). Why not the works of Dostoyevsky or Dante?

Can you provide us with any reasoned argument why we should accept your
estimate? Are you _really_ claiming a fundamental linkage between the pen
of Shakespeare and the beginning of life?


-- 
Peter Lamb (prl@csis.dit.csiro.au)
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Creationist CRAPOLA!
Date: 6 Oct 92 01:15:13 GMT
Followup-To: talk.origins
Organization: Apple

In article <1992Sep28.121140.24899@city.cs>, lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel
Tun) wrote:
> 
> As to the interpretation of that, evo's say its because of
> evo, but an equally if not more valid interpretation is that
> of hydrological sorting in the flood.

It's not only hydrological sorting, it's *intelligent* hydrological
sorting, making sure that each layer will get the right fossiles.

I would like to know how creationists explain a natural wave 
that takes a look at each fossile, and places it on the right spot?
Does water have intelligence? Hmmm....

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.
From: swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Question for Creationists
Date: 27 Sep 92 16:52:37 GMT
Reply-To: swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

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.
-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
From: bruce@uxb.liv.ac.uk (Bruce Stephens)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: 10k Christians perform miracles ever so quietly
Date: 5 Oct 92 22:26:47 GMT
	<1992Sep30.120831.28903@city.cs>
	<1992Oct5.115613.22299@dcs.warwick.ac.uk>
Organization: Centre for Mathematical Software Research, Univ. Liverpool, UK

>>>>> On 5 Oct 92, simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale) said:

> 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?

I'm fairly sure I saw a TV program on it.  Possibly Everyman, BBC1
Sunday evenings.  Something like that anyway.

But no, the news coverage wasn't overwhelming by any means.  I don't
remember any mention in the papers, for example.  Should this be
crossposted to uk.misc?
--
Bruce Stephens.  Centre for Mathematical Software Research, Liverpool Univ.
Internet: bruce@uxb.liv.ac.uk     JANET: bruce@uk.ac.liv.uxb
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: amorgan@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Crunchy Frog)
Subject: Re: Friesen on elastics and sauropod necks
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 00:11:49 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.184937@IASTATE.EDU> 
  kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:
>
>[the rest deleted, althoug it does put a final nail in the coffin of any
>suspicion Ted may know anything about mechanical engineering]

Why do you restrict it to mechanical engineering?

C Frog
From: davis@bedlam.asd.sgi.com (Tom Davis)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: New Evidence for Creation!
Date: 5 Oct 92 15:32:18 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: bedlam.asd.sgi.com

In article <1aj94iINNp7f@moe.ksu.ksu.edu>, jsanders@phys.ksu.edu (Justin M. Sanders) writes:
|> On the contrary it becomes even more accurate, even more exact, and
|> EVEN BETTER!  Taking the temperature to be 99.2 deg F in 1992 and
|> 98.6 deg F in 1868, indicates that the temperature of the human body
|> was 32 deg F (freezing point of water) in 11897.04 BC!  Clearly THAT IS
|> when the Creation occurred!
|> 
|> ***For the sarcastically challenged:  8-) *****
|> --
|> Justin M. Sanders    "The science of mathematics has no more 
|> Dept. of Physics       bowels of mercy than has a cast-iron dog." 
|> Kansas State Univ.      --Rep. John A. Anderson of Kansas, 1882

How come nobody seems to be taking into account the fact that the boiling
and freezing points of water have also been linearly changing all this
time?

  -- Tom Davis
From: gascan@dcst16.dc (Bill Gascoyne)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: New Evidence for Creation!
Date: 2 Oct 92 16:59:00 GMT
Reply-To: gascan@dcst16.dc
Organization: LSI Logic Corporation

In article 23660@cbnews.cb.att.com, ran@cbnews.cb.att.com (Robert A. Neinast) writes:
>
[delete] 
> In the "Journal of the American Medical Association", Philip Mackowiak has
> recently measured the average human body temperature
[delete] 
>                                                    This pretty well points
> to the fact that, just as maximum lifespan of humans has been declining
> since the Fall (c.g. Methuselah--Gen 5:27), so has average body temperature.
> 

Huh?

Did you leave the smiley faces off on purpose, or by accident?

Let me get this straight: Two studies come up with slightly different results,
and an extrapolation of the discrepancy leads you to project that X years ago
the extrapoation becomes ridiculous, ergo X is the maximum age of the universe.
If the result of the later study had been slightly higher than the earlier, you
would have concluded that average body temperature had been declining and made
a ridiculous extrapolation the other way.  So?

> Maybe this will finally silence the unbelievers.

Not a chance.

---
1. Bill Gascoyne
From: David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Holden
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Sep 21 1992
Date: 26 Sep 92  17:21:02

Tag: news (news@fedfil.UUCP (Ted Holden))
 
TH> "Not at all. I'm asserting that you are a bullshit, fictitious
TH> liar for claiming that I have made a statement which I have
TH> never made."
 
I prefer the word "prevaricator," though "liar" will do in a
pinch. And it is =horse= shit I muck all day, not bull. Other
than that, seems you have me pegged. Now, let me point out that
I have since retracted my assertion that you have claimed the
Earth stopped revolving for a day. I went back through a year's
worth of posts, and I =DO NOT= find you making that claim. Okay?
 
TH> "Velikovsky offered several possibilities as to causes for
TH> humans observing a lengthened day; the one you mention is
TH> not the one I regard as most likely."
 
Because Earth wobbles. That's why CUT is incremented or
decremented a "leap second" every few years--- however, the
average approaches zero over the decades that had reliable
measures. I suspect that the very tiny lengthening of the
day can be attributed to additional weight on the Earth due
to material from space falling on it, among other things.
Coral samples and shallow lake bed cores show that Earth
has slowed down a very small amount over the last hundred
thousand years.
 
>*Perhaps you are just presenting the "information" (over, and over,
>*and over, and over, and over, and over again) without personal
>*bias/agenda, out of the desire to educate us poor, ignorant,
>*possibly Satanic Conspiratorial dumb bastards?
 
TH> "Leave out the part about satanic [sic] conspiracies, which I
TH> don't regard you as bright enough for, and the part about me
TH> educating you (some tasks are beyond even my powers). The poor,
TH> ignorant dumb bastards part is right on the money."
 
Well, Ted, now that the secret is out, we can tell you: I'm
-IN CHARGE- of the Satanic conspiracy! Mr. Merrit is one of my
evil minions. Sue Bishop is Satan's "Public Relations Officer"
(what a, er, ah, HELL of a job THAT is!). Chris Colby we keep
for his pretty face. Roger Squires is our kitchen help. Bruce
Salem takes out the trash and mops up. We wanted YOU to be Court
Jester, but we'd have to pay you the wages that go with the job,
while you do the job of Newsgroup Jester for free.
 
(And please, Satan and Satanic is capitalized, just like Christ
and Christianic. Okay? Great: Satan and I thank you.)
 
TH> Ted Holden HTE
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: prl@csis.dit.csiro.au (Peter Lamb)
Subject: Re: Egg-shaped antediluvian world
Organization: CSIRO Division of Information Technology
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 03:18:09 GMT

news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:

>In article <1992Sep23.235741.11710@csis.dit.csiro.au>, prl@csis.dit.csiro.au (Peter Lamb) writes:
>*news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
>*
>*
>*>A recent issue of the Aeon journal, which concerns itself with
>*>the nature of the antedeluvian world, carried my article concerning
>*>sauropod dinosaurs, as well as a somewhat longer and more interesting
>*>article by Lynn Rose involving continental drift theory.
>*	... ad tedium ...
>*
>*Ted, this is the same nonsense that you posted on 19 Jul 92 12:17:28 GMT
>*in <2823@fedfil.UUCP>. I posted a long refutation of Rose's babblings, and
>*never saw even the slightest disputation of them from you.
>*

>Your "refutation" did not address any of the logical points which Rose made,
>your repeated claims to have refuted Rose ring hollow.  

I addresses all of Rose's main arguments. I showed them to be
at variance with the facts. Please tell us all which ones
I missed, and what's wrong with my argument.

>Your plea that I stop posting this article for the benefit of newcomers or
>those who haven't seen it rings hollow.

I didn't say that, Ted. I said that I find your resending stuff that
has been thoroughly discredited, without any attempt to back it up
or rebut the arguments against it, tedious.

-- 
Peter Lamb (prl@csis.dit.csiro.au)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: stassen@alc.com (Chris Stassen)
Subject: "Hydrological sorting" (was: "Re: Creationist CRAPOLA!")
Organization: The Lion's Den, San Jose
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 22:39:33 GMT

Lionel Tun writes:
> All [the fossil record] shows is that different forms of life appear
> in the fossil record at different _layers_!

This is at least different from Lionel's original claim, which was that
the fossil record was merely a figment of "evolutionists'" imaginations.
Is this a half-hearted admission of error, Mr. Tun?

> As to the interpretation of that, evo's say its because of evo, but an
> equally if not more valid interpretation is that of hydrological sorting
> in the flood.

You need to address the problems in the FAQ that Mark Isaak recently
posted.  Without a substantiation, how are we to know that this claim
is any better than the one you abandoned for it?
--
Chris Stassen			408-943-0630			stassen@alc.com
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach)
Subject: Re: Question for Creationists
Organization: TI Semiconductor Process and Design Center
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 19:58:18 GMT

In article <1453@esl.ESL.COM> markwc@barney.esl.com (Mark Christiansen) writes:
>In article <q8u85as@zola.esd.sgi.com>
>livesey@solntze.esd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
>
>>In article <1433@esl.ESL.COM>
>>markwc@barney.esl.com (Mark Christiansen) writes:
>
>>> Circular arguments exist in science as well:
>
>>> "We know this because scientific writings tell us so, and we 
>>> know that scientific writings are correct because the scientists 
>>> tell us so through their writings."
>
>>Just out of interest, did you go to the kind of school where
>>people read *about* science, as they might read about history,
>>or the kind of school where pupils actually perform simple
>>experiments for themselves?
>
>>Now you can't exactly construct a fission pile in the squash
>>courts just for fun, but there's an amazing about of basic
>>science, up to and including things like simple cloud chamber
>>experiments, that you can do for yourself with very modest
>>equipment.
>
>>When I see people allege that we only know what scientists
>>tell us about science, I wonder if we seeing the effects of
>>the video generation, where people think they are taking 
>>part in sport by watching a footbal game, and think that 
>>it's science when they watch a film of some Physicist talking
>>about how he likes to listen to music in his spare time.
>
>I'm not sure I understand your point.  I have done considerable
>research in some areas of science.  But a majority of people have only
>read *about* science and have no knowledge at all of what scientific
>research is.  They must accept on faith what they are told by
>scientists.  They are thus living with a circular argument in science.
>I never said that a scientist must live by circular arguments and
>neither does someone searching to understand God.
>

Scientific knowledge is either indepently verifiable or it is rejected. 
Most science classes I've attended, even at the high school level, had 
labs where the basic concepts could be demonstrated/proved. More advanced
concepts may require more advanced techniques (more time/money) but you 
can bet they are checked out before being accepted as scientific fact. 
   How does one independently test the validity of a miracle that happened
2,000 years ago?

Jeff Achenbach
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun)
Subject: Re: Water Sorting
Organization: City University, London
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 92 13:12:08 GMT

In article <n0b4et@ofa123.fidonet.org> David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org writes:
>Tag: Lionel Tun (lionel@cs.city.ac.uk)
> 
>>The fossil record (even as assembled by 19th-century
>>Creationists, not to mention the much more extensive work
>>that has been done since then) clearly shows that different
>>forms of life appeared at different times. Change
>>unquestionably occurred; the only question is how.
> 
>LT> "All it shows is that different forms of life appear in the
>LT> fossil record at different _layers_! [P] As to the interpretation
>LT> of that, evo's say its because of evo, but an equally if not more
>LT> valid interpretation is that of hydrological sorting in the flood.
> 
>Alas, you haven't been paying attention. Just how did water sort
>the fossils by their age?

Hahaha, hahahaha. As the old saying goes, Circular Reasoning (TM)
strikes again! You jest, no?

--
Lionel Tun   (lionel@cs.city.ac.uk)
Vision Group, City University, London, EC1V 0HB. 071-477 8000 x 3889
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun)
Subject: Re: a brief tirade
Organization: City University, London
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 12:37:14 GMT

In article <96870@bu.edu> colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby) writes:
>In article <1992Sep23.192500.25102@nsisrv.gsfc.nasa.gov> jgacker@neptune (James G. Acker) writes:
>
>>	Hey Chris -- 
>
>Hi Jim. 
>
>>	At some point, I'll summarize "Progressive Creationism" in
>>my "Creation" book and I'll call it a "Theory of Creation". 
>>	 My first impression:
>>Is that it's adaptable enough to cope with anything science discovers, and
>>very non-specific. 
>
>Could I ask a serious question? What good is a theory that is adaptable
>enough to cope with anything science discovers? 

Are you by any chance referring to the ever changing theory of
evolution?

--
Lionel Tun   (lionel@cs.city.ac.uk)
Vision Group, City University, London, EC1V 0HB. 071-477 8000 x 3889
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Methinks it's like a weasel (Blind Watchmaker)
Date: 5 Oct 92 00:19:05 GMT
Followup-To: talk.origins
Organization: Apple

In article <1992Sep28.185757.19591@cs.joensuu.fi>, asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi
(Antti Siivonen) wrote:
> 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 :)

Ok, logically explain why this was the case. Maybe this explanation would
help us to understand how you think.

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

I guess this is your problem, you can't see how small parts together
form a higher thinking entity. I guess you also wonder how transistors
can't think, but the computer thinks. You have a lot of problematic
cases, because this world is built upon single components forming
higher abstraction levels. What am I doing, I'm teaching a
biologist-wannabe
the basics of biology :-).

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: bseymour@encore.com (Burch Seymour)
Subject: Tedster Jokes, The astromoners respond
Organization: Encore Computer Corporation
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 11:52:09 GMT



The astronomers reply:

Q: What did Ted Get on his SAT's?

A: Drool
*===================*

Q: What did Ted's parents have in common?

A: Their grandparents.
*===================*

Q: How long does it take Ted to change a lightbulb?

A: Forever. He just keeps standing there holden it, waiting for the
   universe to revolve around him. Hasn't so far. Never will.
*===================*

Q: What do Ted and Daffy Duck have in common?

A: They're both Looney Tunes.
*===================*

Ted goes to the doctor. "Doc", he says, "Normally I have brown hair and brown
eyes. Today when I woke up my hair was all white, my eyes too!"

The Doc thinks a moment, and says, "You're Ted, right?"

  "Right."

The Doc goes away and comes back with a large cup. "Drink this all down",
he orders.

Ted pours it down. He then gets the most awful look on his face, but his
hair and eye color almost immediately return to brown. "Gacck, what was
that. Tasted and smelled like bullshit!".

To which the Doctor replies, "It was. You were a quart low."

*===================*

Q: What was Ted's 21'st birthday such a special event?

A: His age finally surpassed his IQ.
*===================*

Q: Why didn't Ted ever join the Boy Scouts or the military?

A: He doesn't believe in uniform-itarianism.
*===================*

Q: Why doesn't Ted wear a leather jacket or leather shoes?

A: He can't stand Hyde.
*===================*

Q: Why did Ted quit his job to be come a bum?

A: He wanted to live a life without Merritt.
*===================*

Ted recently renouced the Catholic Church. Says the Bishop is a liar.
*===================*
From: keck@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Keck)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Holden and the long-necked sauropod II
Date: 6 Oct 92 22:15:55 GMT
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens

One quick comment- people keep saying things like "it wouldn't
have time for much besides eating".  So?  Many studies on birds
in particular (wintering birds) have shown that in very cold areas
a bird must eat a seed around every 1.3 seconds while it's awake.
As long as this isn't a year-long thing (i.e. time available for
breeding, etc.) many organisms do just fine eating nearly 
constantly.  We shouldn't apply human values to animals.  So they
have to eat all the time, so they must be miserable- they're
alive and passing on their genes.  That's all it takes.