HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cust_ts@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Tero Sand)
Subject: Re: Future evolution of Creationism
Keywords: future
Organization: University of Helsinki
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 07:54:37 GMT

In article <1993Jan9.225241.4968@panix.com> arandia@panix.com (Joel Arandia) writes:
>I can't help but blame the scientific community for not popularizing science 
>enough.  There seem to be very few scientists who get up and try to make
>current science understood by 'normal human beings.'  As a result, science
>becomes this mystical, impossible-to-understand-by-normal-people thing.
>I think this is where people gain a certain mistrust of science's findings
>or anything scientific.
>
>joel d. arandia

Maybe, to an extent. The appaklling level of knowledge of this one
individual I was talking about, I feel, was hardly scientists' fault.
I'm _positive_ she had had access to the information in her youth.

	Tero Sand
-- 
	EMail: cust_ts@cc.helsinki.fi   or   custts@cc.helsinki.fi
   "I feel most ministers who claim they've heard God's voice are eating
too much pizza before they go to bed at night, and it's really an 
intestinal disorder, not a revelation." - Reverend Jerry Falwell
From: rowe@pender.ee.upenn.edu (Mickey Rowe)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Future evolution of Creationism
Keywords: future
Date: 12 Jan 93 22:57:27 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <1993Jan9.225241.4968@panix.com> arandia@panix.com 
     (Joel Arandia) writes:

>I can't help but blame the scientific community for not popularizing science 
>enough.  There seem to be very few scientists who get up and try to make
>current science understood by 'normal human beings.'  

I think that your blame is ill placed.  Not only are there authors
like the ones that others have referred to in previous posts, but I
have first hand experience of the sorts of things that working
scientists are willing to do.  Last summer the Franklin Institute (a
local museum) set up an exhibit about the brain.  Many faculty people
and graduate students helped by offering suggestions about what to
present, examining the exhibit for accuracy, and staffing the exhibit
to answer questions and do a bit of show and tell with real brains.
It doesn't "seem" to me at all the way it "seems" to you...

>joel d. arandia

Mickey Rowe     (rowe@pender.ee.upenn.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: isaak@aurora.com (Mark Isaak)
Subject: Re: YOUNG EARTHERS _AND_ BIBLE CRITICS WATCH OUT! (huh?)
Reply-To: isaak@aurora.com (Mark Isaak)
Organization: The Aurora Group
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 93 01:30:27 GMT


In article <MMEYER.92Dec30130453@m2.dseg.ti.com> mmeyer@m2.dseg.ti.com (Mark Meyer) writes:
>_GENESIS CREATION ACCOUNT_ from Hugh Ross' "The Fingerprint of God"

[Hugh Ross argues that Modern Biblical Interpretation proves that
the order of events in Genesis, Hallelujia!, matches the order
given by Science.]

Ross is being dishonest, if not with his audience, then at least with
himself.  The fact that he mentions other interpretations giving other
orderings should tell him that there is nothing objective in Genesis
to tell what ordering is correct.

Also, he writes:
>[Ross's ordering of events] perfectly accords with the findings of modern
>science.

Unfortunately, it doesn't accord with the Bible.  The Bible, for example,
doesn't mention the creation of land plants, but of *fruiting* plants,
which didn't appear until much later.  Also, Genesis talks about the
creation of the Sun and Moon; I've never seen a version which says "God
caused the Sun and Moon to become clearly visible [by whom?] from the
surface of the Earth."

Finally, Ross says the odds of the Bible getting that ordering are
one in 40 million.  This would be true if the events were independent,
but they aren't.  Nobody smarter than a Creationist would ever
suggest that sea creatures were created before seas, for example.
The real odds of getting events in the order given in the Bible are
closer to 1 in 24.
-- 
Mark Isaak           "Every generation thinks it has the answers, and every
isaak@aurora.com      generation is humbled by nature." - Philip Lubin
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: btd@iastate.edu (Benjamin T Dehner)
Subject: Re: Cosmos without Gravitation
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 21:22:55 GMT

In <193@fedfil.UUCP> news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:

>In article <btd.725965254@pv7440.vincent.iastate.edu>, btd@iastate.edu (Benjamin T Dehner) writes:

>^	Several times I have requested models/calculations from Mr. Holden,
>^with no result.  As a specific example, I have asked for model atmospheres
>^of Venus which SHOW that pure solar energy cannot give the observed tempera-
>^ture profile.  As we are only now begining to understand global atmospheric
>^dynamics, I find it unlikely that this request will ever be answered.

>In other words, since I cannot provide for Venus what nobody else can even 
>provide for this planet, which is closer and easier to study, everything
>else I might have to say regarding Venus is to be discounted.

	No:  my point is you have done NO quantitive calculation of any of
the various physical quanitities which you claim that current models of
Venus predict either inaccurately or inconsistently with physical laws. 
You have not discussed energy flows in the Venusian atmosphere due to 
planetary waves, convection, or NLTE (Non-Local Thermodynamic Equilibrium)
radiation effects.  You have not discussed chemical constituents, equilibrium,
stratification, or opacities.  In short, you have not done one bit of science 
or shown the slightest bit of understanding of the area where you criticize 
coventional science so heavily.

>Does it strike you as strange that nobody on the other side would be willing
>to play this game by that set of rules?

	The 'other side' uses modeling by known physical principles instead
of assertion and arguement from ignorance.  Try it sometime -- you might
get a better reception.

>-- 
>Ted Holden
>HTE

Ben Dehner

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin T. Dehner    Dept. of Physics and Astronomy 
btd@iastate.edu       Iowa State University 
                      Ames, IA 50011
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: Cosmos without Gravitation
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 13:42:35 GMT

In article <193@fedfil.UUCP> news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
}In article <btd.725965254@pv7440.vincent.iastate.edu>, btd@iastate.edu (Benjamin T Dehner) writes:
}
}^	Several times I have requested models/calculations from Mr. Holden,
}^with no result.  As a specific example, I have asked for model atmospheres
}^of Venus which SHOW that pure solar energy cannot give the observed tempera-
}^ture profile.  As we are only now begining to understand global atmospheric
}^dynamics, I find it unlikely that this request will ever be answered.
}
}In other words, since I cannot provide for Venus what nobody else can even 
}provide for this planet, which is closer and easier to study, everything
}else I might have to say regarding Venus is to be discounted.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.  Your claims are...
extraordinary.  Proceed.

}Does it strike you as strange that nobody on the other side would be willing
}to play this game by that set of rules?

Nowhere near as amusing as your inability to do so...

Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu (scharle)
Subject: Re: Evolution implied by the Bible
Reply-To: scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu (scharle)
Organization: Univ. of Notre Dame
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 16:53:51 GMT

In article <1993Jan12.134342.24214@nsisrv.gsfc.nasa.gov>, jgacker@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker) writes:
|> Lionel Tun (lionel@cs.city.ac.uk) wrote:
|> 
|> : Ooops! I've done that very thing. Virgin birth, yes. What is the
|> : immaculate conception?
|> : 
|> 
|> 	Catholics correct me if I'm wrong, but the doctrine says that
|> Mary was also conceived by the Holy Spirit and whoever Mary's mother
|> was.  Now, I don't know if Mary's mother was a virgin (she could have
|> had children before Mary), but the main reason for the doctrine was to
|> remove any vestige of sex from the birth of Christ -- i.e., both the
|> Immaculate Virgin (Mary) and Christ were conceived sans sex.

    To those not interested in the intricacies of Roman Catholic 
doctrine, my apologies for intruding in t.o, and you may read no 
further.

    The dogma of the Immaculate Conception says that Mary the Mother
of Jesus was without Original Sin (the sin that all the rest of us
inherit because of our descent from Adam and Eve) all of her life,
from the moment of her conception.  She had human parents -- Saints 
Anne and Joachim.  "Immaculate" in this case means "without stain",
that is, "without the stain of Original Sin."

    Thus the immaculateness of the conception of Mary has nothing to
do with sexual activity, or its lack.  It is rather that Mary had
had no sin, including Original Sin.  It is a fairly old belief (from AD 1000?)
in the Roman Catholic Church, but certainly not held by everyone at all
times.

    It was one of the two beliefs which were made official doctrine 
by Papal decree (that is, "ex cathedra", and thus falling under the
principle of Papal infallibility, the other one being the Assumption,
but let's not get into that in talk.origins), by Pope Pius IX in 1854.
My understanding is that in some Orthodox Churches 
the belief exists, though, obviously, is not obligatory (it was not 
defined in an Ecumenical Council).  I would expect that it would be 
extremely rare among other Christians (although is it possible that 
some high Church of England types might accept it?).

    It has been remarked (sometimes, seemingly seriously) that
people who do not believe in Original Sin also thereby believe in
the Immaculate Conception.  (If there is no such thing as Original
Sin, then Mary, and everybody else, was conceived immaculately.)

    BTW, I have no interest in opinions as to the soundness of the
dogma, I am only reporting the facts about what the dogma says. 

|> 
|> 	Jim Acker

-- 
Tom Scharle                |scharle@irishmvs(Bitnet)
Room G003 Computing Center |scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu(Internet)
University of Notre Dame  Notre Dame, IN 46556-0539 USA
From: Dr.Pepper@f241.n103.z1.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Evolution implied by the Bible
X-Sender: newtout 0.06 Jan  3 1993
Date: 11 Jan 93  16:36:00

 > From: hartley@maths.uwa.oz.au (Mike Hartley)
 > Message-ID: <1imefcINN5om@uniwa.uwa.edu.au>

Not bad. It fails to address the fact that new genetic information can
accumulate without being expressed, but it was certainly better thought out
that most creationist stuff i've seen.

Now could you please state the theory of creationism?

+--------------------------+--------------------------------------+
| 10                    2  | Garden Grove Institute of Technology |
|        DR PEPPER         | Community Outreach Center            |
|                       4  |                                      |
+--------------------------+ Snail Addr: Unit #1, 7872 Trask      |
| Hussein: We made him, we |             Westminster, Ca  92683   |
| broke him, we'll build   | Modem:      714-894-7039             |
| him up again if we want  | Fidonet:    1:103/241                |
| to, we're the US.        | Candynet:   42:1001/1                |
|                          | Internet:   Dr.Pepper@f241.n103.z1   |
|                          |              .fidonet.org            |
+--------------------------+--------------------------------------+

---
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: keck@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Keck)
Subject: Re: Mark's Laws of Biology
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 18:23:49 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.073751.8290@klaava.Helsinki.FI> cust_ts@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Tero Sand) writes:
>In article <1ichi8INNojs@uwm.edu> markh@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Mark) writes:
>>I propose these very general laws on a linkage between procreation, aging and
>>complexity:
>>
>>(1) In all species, over the long term, the average birth rate is equal to the
>>    average death rate.
>[...]
>>(1) is
>>obnviously valid).
>
>Is it? I would say it depends on the time span you select.
>	Tero Sand

Right.. if the 'long term' equals the existence of the species, then not
only the averages but the _exact_ birth and death rates are equal.  If the
'long term' is shorter, you'd have to find a species in equilibrium (e.g.
isolated or under strong population size selection) for it to be true.

For example, human pop. size has been increasing steadily for a looong time,
with possibly a few blips during plagues.

Paul Keck  I'm not a law on biology, but I play one on TV. 
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: mls@panix.com (Michael Siemon)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Evolution implied by the Bible
Summary: strange presumption, there
Date: 4 Jan 93 20:53:58 GMT
Organization: Panix Public Access Internet & Unix, NYC

In article <1993Jan04.000557.19737@jcnpc.cmhnet.org> mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mike A. McAngus) writes:
>[ Article crossposted from alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc ]
>[ Author was Martin Dougiamas ]
>[ Posted on Sun, 3 Jan 1993 07:57:20 GMT ]
>
>Christians among you: explain this.
>
>If Man was created only thousands of years ago, and we are all
>descended from common stock... why is there such a wide variety
>in our genetic pool today?

Well, I (like most Christians here or elsewhere) would suggest that
the premise is mistaken.  It is, after all, fairly well-established
(and not a matter of controversy within most Christian groups) that
our species appeared rather MORE than (a few) thousands of years ago.
-- 
Michael L. Siemon	"We honour founders of these starving cities
mls@panix.com		 Whose honour is the image of our sorrow ...
			 They built by rivers and at night the water
			 Running past the windows comforted their sorrow."
From: jgacker@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Permo/Triassic quandary
Date: 6 Jan 93 21:46:12 GMT
Organization: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center - Greenbelt, MD USA
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

Bruce Salem (salem@pangea.Stanford.EDU) wrote:
: 	I am not clear about how Jim's discussion of asteriod
: impacts in the history of the sieberian traps, or in other
: possibly pivotal plate tectonic events, relates to the rest
: of the discussion in talk.origins . I am not suggesting


	Another thought -- the correlation of these events through
various dating methods (radioisotope, correlations with magnetic
reversals, etc.) impinges strongly on scientific reconstrution of
prehistoric chronologies, which is a topic Bob Bales brings up,
even though he's an ignoramus about it.


============================================================
|  James G. Acker                       Occasional Genius  |
|  jgacker@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov        Regular Swimmer    |
|                                                          |
|  "Animal-based research in this field ignores the fact   |
|  that in humans much sexual behavior has little to do    |
|  with reproduction both psychologically and physio-      |
|  logically..."                                           |
============================================================
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: Evolution implied by the Bible
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 17:45:59 GMT

In article <1993Jan12.165351.7747@news.nd.edu>, scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu
(scharle) writes:
>     The dogma of the Immaculate Conception says that Mary the Mother
[...]
>     Thus the immaculateness of the conception of Mary has nothing to
> do with sexual activity, or its lack.  It is rather that Mary had
> had no sin, including Original Sin.  It is a fairly old belief (from AD
1000?)
> in the Roman Catholic Church, but certainly not held by everyone at all
> times.

  I have a feeling it is considerably older than that.  Old enough that the
first written account was in Greek instead of Latin (when did Latin become the
universal language?  800?)

  As far as I know the RC Church is the only one that accepts this (oh yeah,
there was that split off that happened a couple of years ago, but I wouldn't
really consider them separate).

>     It was one of the two beliefs which were made official doctrine 
> by Papal decree (that is, "ex cathedra", and thus falling under the
> principle of Papal infallibility, the other one being the Assumption,

  Ah, the assumption is considerably more recent.  I remember strolling through
the art gallary in Lyon, where the paintings are laid out in order of age.  The
14th century painting of the death of mary was about four feet from the 15th
century painting of the assumption.  Rather suprising to see such a sudden
transition.

> but let's not get into that in talk.origins)

  Probably a good idea.


> I would expect that it would be 
> extremely rare among other Christians (although is it possible that 
> some high Church of England types might accept it?).

  I don't think so.  Officially the Anglican Church doesn't even recognize the
same saints.  (Some bishops have even been quoted as not believing in the virgin
birth, so I don't think they come _that_ high).  Wonderful church I belong to,
no? :-)

 |  __L__
-|-  ___  Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub
 |  | o | kv07@iastate.edu
 |/ `---' Iowa State University
/|   ___  Math Department
 |  |___| 400 Carver Hall
 |  |___| Ames, IA  50011
 J  _____
From: Dr.Pepper@f241.n103.z1.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Sagan
X-Sender: newtout 0.06 Jan  3 1993
Date: 09 Jan 93  04:54:00

 > }Most serious astronomers think Sagan is a loud-mouthed wind-
 > bag.
 > }An odd sort of worship that!

 > Do not have to be a "serious astronomer".  I wish the guy would
 > stick
 > to what he knows - he happens to have done a few papers on
 > planetary
 > atmospherics that I thought were a bit interesting, co-authored
 > a few,
 > and worked on the venerian probe.  But he has gone the way of
 > Jock Custo

I think the easiest way to put Sagan in perspective is to compare "Broca's
Brain" (informative) with "The Dragons of Eden" (silly).

+--------------------------+--------------------------------------+
| 10                    2  | Garden Grove Institute of Technology |
|        DR PEPPER         | Community Outreach Center            |
|                       4  |                                      |
+--------------------------+ Snail Addr: Unit #1, 7872 Trask      |
| Fight idolatry, burn a   |             Westminster, Ca  92683   |
| flag today.              | Modem:      714-894-7039             |
|                          | Fidonet:    1:103/241                |
|                          | Candynet:   42:1001/1                |
|                          | Internet:   Dr.Pepper@f241.n103.z1   |
|                          |              .fidonet.org            |
+--------------------------+--------------------------------------+

---
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: jbm@hal.trl.OZ.AU (Jacques Guy)
Subject: Re: Voyagers on the Ark of Noah
Organization: Telecom Research Labs, Melbourne, Australia
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 22:05:27 GMT

lamoran@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (L.A. Moran) writes:


>Noah took with him was less than 50,000. This is fewer than the number of 
>species because only "kinds" were counted. For example, the dog "kind"
>includes wolves, dogs, coyotes and other doglike creatures. It was only
>necessary to take one example of the dog kind.

>even though they were not taken on the ark. Freshwater fish managed to
>find local pools of non-salt water that did not mix with the ocean 

Very interesting, isn't it? After the flood, momentarily I suppose, God
must have allowed for His creation to reproduce not quite "after their kind",
for how would we now have the chihuahua and the St Bernard issued from
that one example of the dog kind.  I wonder how many examples of "kangaroo"
kind were in the ark. One single kind for the wallaby, euroa, etc. I
suppose. It explains the platypus neatly: this particular one example
of its kind, once released after the flood, became the duck, the beaver,
and the otter. Oh, wonderful Economy of the Divine Plan!

And where were those local pools of non-salt water? The flood covered
the entire Earth to a great height. Sea-going fish bowls perhaps?
Xref: sparky talk.origins:16162 talk.religion.misc:25855
From: ds0007@medtronic.COM (Dale Skiba)
Subject: Re: Evolution implied by the Bible
Organization: Medtronic, Inc.
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 18:44:45 GMT

Stephen Watson (watson@sce.carleton.ca) wrote:
: vanweer@ecf.toronto.edu (VANWEERDENBURG NICHOLAS JOHN) writes:

: >In article <1993Jan5.002839.1093@smds.com> rh@ishmael.UUCP (Richard Harter) writes:

: >I almost believe that this is a humorous post, but I can't really tell.

: Sorry, Richard, but you need to start using smilies.  Creationists
: descend so often into self-parody that it gets difficult to tell the
                       ^UNINTENTIONAL
: spoofs from the genuine item.

I think their intentional parody is alot easier to detect :-)

--
Dale Skiba
From: brinkman@si151a.llnl.gov
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Ginenthal on Venus' Surface Phenomena
Date: 12 Jan 93 19:17:02 GMT


   In article <200@fedfil.UUCP> news@fedfil.UUCP (news) "The Inimitable
One" writes lots and lots of stuff on Venus, yet still fails to answer
the one question that I have asked repeatedly...

   HYDROCARBONS--CARBOHYDRATES; What's the difference?

   In an attempt to make this topical--Ted, in almost 800 lines of post
you failed to make one mention of the (for lack of a better word) 
HYDRO/CARBO-CARBONS/HYDRATES of Velikovsky.  Didn't Big V predict that Venus
should be just littered with the things?  How come no evidence for those?*

>Ted Holden
>HTE

* Heck if Ted could provide any evidence for vast pools of oil or mountains
  of manna on Venus, he would quickly win himself one convert.  Of course, I
  am not worried about this occurring, since like most figments of febrile
  imaginations these items do not really exist.

--
Matt Brinkman
brinkman@edseq1.llnl.gov
From: brinkman@si151a.llnl.gov
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Evolution implied by the Bible
Date: 12 Jan 93 19:15:14 GMT


   In article <1993Jan12.134342.24214@nsisrv.gsfc.nasa.gov>
jgacker@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker) writes...

>Lionel Tun (lionel@cs.city.ac.uk) wrote:

>: Ooops! I've done that very thing. Virgin birth, yes. What is the
>: immaculate conception?

   Why does it not surprise me that the self-same person who tried to
equate the use of the word "Word" in John with the _Bible_, would also
get confused on the difference between the Virgin Birth and the Immaculate
Conception?

>	Catholics correct me if I'm wrong, but the doctrine says that
>Mary was also conceived by the Holy Spirit and whoever Mary's mother
>was.  Now, I don't know if Mary's mother was a virgin (she could have
>had children before Mary), but the main reason for the doctrine was to
>remove any vestige of sex from the birth of Christ -- i.e., both the
>Immaculate Virgin (Mary) and Christ were conceived sans sex.

   Well, I'm not a Catholic, but this is wrong.  The Doctrine of the
Immaculate Conception says that Mary was conceived without Original Sin.
In RC theology Original Sin != Sex, hence the distinction between the
Immaculate Conception and the Virgin Birth.  The main reason for the doctrine
was to remove any vestige of Original Sin (not sex) from the birth of Christ.
The removal of sex from the conception of Christ is in accordance with OT
prophecy which claimed the Messiah would be born of a Virgin (thus, there
really is no need for Mary to have sprung from the same process).

>	Jim Acker

   For anyone interested, one of the most amusing portions of Christopher
Durang's _Sister Mary Ignatius Explains It All For You_ occurs when
Sister Mary Ignatius becomes positively irate over people who confuse the
Immaculate Conception and the Virgin Birth.

--
Matt Brinkman
brinkman@edseq1.llnl.gov