HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: keithd@well.sf.ca.us (Keith Doyle)
Subject: Re: Science and God
Keywords: Science, God
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 02:54:12 GMT



I wrote:
>>This is related to the idea of "humility" as that quality of being
>>unassuming in that you are not sure you are always right.  Christian
>>"humility" however, does not include that characteristic, there is no
>>possibility they could be wrong about Jesus.  When they apply that

Julian Shillcock responds:
>Aren't you being a bit sweeping here? Do all christians (proselytizers
>or not) assume they are always right? I do not recall saying
>this.

The problem is that when they take it to the point of giving you "advice"
is where we run into trouble.  As an offbeat example, suppose it was the
case that the existance of the Bible and Christianity was due to some evil
deity or demon, and if you believe in him you are ultimately doomed.  When
a Christian decides to take that risk upon himself, I have no problem with
that, but when he "sells" the position to others, he is doing so in the
context that he is correct and could not possibly be exposing someone else
to some potential risk.

And for a little more benign example, suppose that God exists and wants
us to think for ourselves, to the point where he has set up mental road-
blocks (such as Biblical dogmas) as tests of our ability to use our
reasoning abilities.  And perhaps if we get through life with our reason
intact and don't fall prey to fear or other negative factors, that we
earn some kind of extra reward when it's all over.  Christians therefore,
may be responsible for interfering with that process.  Again, I have no
problem if they want to take on that risk for themselves, but they are
presuming too much when they make specific attempts to convince others
of their own beliefs.  Christians presume to know what God thinks, when
they cannot possibly know what God thinks, even if their basic tenets
are true (accuracy of the Bible, diety of Jesus, etc.).

I feel that no one, and in particular, no one who considers themselves
humble has the right to "convince" someone else (with what is in effect,
a "sales pitch") what they should believe beyond answering questions about
what they themselves believe.  In short, proselytization and humility are
mutually exclusive.  The salesman not only believes he's got the best
product, but that you should believe it as well, even if he turns out to
be wrong about it.

The fact that Christians could turn out to be wrong, rarely if ever
tempers their pitch.

Keith

Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: winner@cua.edu
Subject: A relatively irrelavant side line and opinion
Organization: The Catholic University of America
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 14:08:58 GMT

In article <95045@bu.edu>, colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby) writes:
> In article <1992Aug31.154311.18213@cs.joensuu.fi> asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
>>colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby) writes:
> 
>>>One famous biologist thinks most
>>>speciation events are caused by changes in internal symbionts. Most
>>>doubt this, however.
> 
>>	And no names. 
> 
> Her name is Lynn Margulis.

I'm currently reading one of her older books on the theory.  It is amazing
to read a book discussing a scientific hypothesis/theory (depending upon
the section of the book) after reading Creationsists arguements.

When Ms. Margulis writes the chapters about Undulopodia (which she spells
correctly, unlike me) she very carefully points out other ideas.  She
discusses data which does not well fit her ideas and tries to explain what
work still needs to be done, not to prove her ideas, but to answer the 
questions accurately that her ideas are attempting to address.  She is 
supposed to be having a major revision of this book out some time this
month.  My copy is already on order.  It will be very interesting to 
compare the 2 and see how she has modified the hypothesis to meet more 
recent information.  That is one of the big differences between science and
creationism.

-Jim Winner
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: ds0007@buhao (Dale Skiba)
Subject: Re: The Philosophical problems of Creationism (Was: Try the Bible (Re: Calling Young-earth Creationists)
Organization: Medtronic, Inc.
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Distribution: world,local
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 13:09:03 GMT

hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker) writes:
: 
: One side point, this argument took off on a question of whether one can actually
: define PI "absolutely". I was pointing out that if one is obtuse enough one can
: deny anything to be "proven". However the Bible does in fact give a value for
: PI, so the creationist value of PI is :-
: 
: 3.0
: 
: The relevant bit is in Kings where it refers to a "circle of 30 cubits in
: circumference and 10 in diameter".
: 
: Wonder how they will square the circle?
: 
: --
: 
: Phill Hallam-Baker

You have just posted one of the best arguments against excess literalism.
Most young earth creationists that I know realize that this is an approximate
statement.  They will agree that this is a bogus interpretation of the
Bible.  Therefore they will agree that the Bible does indeed contain
approximate statements.  The trick is to convince them that the book 
of Genesis also contains approximate statements.

If the person actually does believe that pi = 3.0, then you have proof
that this person is a fanatic.  This person is beyond all hope! 

This is very useful in arguments though.  If you are arguing in front of
"non-fanatics" you basicly win as soon as this pops out.

--
Dale Skiba
From: bvickers@net1.ics.uci.edu (Brett J. Vickers)
Subject: Will Bill Riggs ever learn?
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Organization: Univ. of Calif., Irvine, Info. & Computer Sci. Dept.
Date: 4 Sep 92 03:51:36 GMT

He's back at it again, claiming that evolution is not a fact.  I hate to
do this again (I've already done it twice for him), but I'm going to
define evolution once more.  Maybe this time it'll drive through his
dense mental roadblock.

Evolution is a change in allele frequencies in a given population
over a period of time.

It is indisputable that evolution occurs, thus evolution is a scientific
fact.  Please comprehend this time, Bill.  Please.  I must admit I'm
a bit sorry to see that you decided not to take up my challenges to
(1) provide a better alternative to evolution, (2) explain why you feel
Darwin's theory of natural selection was a "wild-ass guess," (3) explain
in detail how the evidence fails to support evolutionary theory, or
(4) merely prove that you know what the evidence for evolution is.

But then I've come to expect that kind of dodgy, misconceived behavior
from creationists.

--
 ___            _    _     _  _        _
(  _) ___ ___ _( )__( )_  ( )( ) o  __( ) _  ___  ___  ___
(___)(_) (__=) (_)_ (_)_   (__) (_)(_((_)(_'(__=)(_) _(_)
Brett J. Vickers (bvickers@ics.uci.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: macroevolution
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 22:07:02 GMT

In article <1992Sep3.123114.17903@cs.joensuu.fi>, asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti
Siivonen) writes:
>kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:
>>  Antti, if you look at this carefully you will se it proves exactly the
>>opposite of what you're trying to prove.  You wan't to find a single species
>>with different structure, not three different species with a similar
structure. 
>>You ahve actually confirmed Chris' point.
> 
> 	That is the problem: The same data, different results. 

  Let me try to make what I said more clear.

  The example you gave was in complete conflict with your claims.  It disproved
your claims.  Your claims were not compatible with the example you gave.  If
your claims were compared to your examples, they would be found to disagree.

  The example you gave was in complete agreement with Chris Colby's claims.  It
confirmed his claims.  His claims were compatible with the example you gave.  If
his claims were compared to your examples, they would be found to agree.

  In other words, you said "No you are wrong because . . ." and gave an example
where he was right.
 
>>  Hard to ask them when we are givenb partial names.  Can you at least
narropw
>>it down to a country so there are only a few thousand phone books to search
>>through?
> 
> 	They are in the BBS system. 

  Then can you give an E-mail address?  A user ID?  Something by which these
people could be found?

 |  __L__   *******************************
-|-  ___    * Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub   *
 |  | o |   * kv07@iastate.edu            *
 |/ `---'   * Iowa State University       *
/|   ___    * Math Department             *
 |  |___|   * 400 Carver Hall             *
 |  |___|   * Ames, IA  50011             *
 J  _____   *******************************
From: news@fedfil.UUCP (news)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Holden and superhumongoreallybigosaur weights (or: more Ted errors)
Date: 30 Aug 92 01:51:10 GMT
Organization: HTE

In article <714947655@sheol.UUCP>, throopw@sheol.UUCP (Wayne Throop) writes:

> > For the benefit of Mssrs. Throop & Friesen, the concensus of opinion
> > for the tracks found in Morocco and listed as breviparopus is that the
> > creature was 160' long.
 
> It is, of course, well to remember that this length is a WAG based on
> stride length. 

Your assumption that the creature was a diplodocus is a WAG based on 
a vain hope that I am wrong and that the old, dead theories are salvagable.

Guiness and others figure the creature as a brachiosaur.

Read 800,000+ lbs.

> Further, I think the "consensus of opinion" Ted is
> talking about is an article in Popular Science.  After all, even with a
> quite complete skeleton to go from, estimates of seismosaur's length
> range from 128 to 154 ft.  The 160 ft for breviparopus is pretty
> certainly just the high end of a range of guesses.

Let's assume the 140' length we've all seen for seismosaur then, and assume
he was a diplodocus, although that also appears to me a WAG at this point.

The guy STILL weighs 288,000 lbs.  You still lose.


> But that's not Ted's major problem today:

MY major problem is that "proving" anything assumes an audience bright
enough to comprehend the proof or, in this case, intellectually honest
enough, non-brain-dead enough, non-sufficiently-locked in with standard
dogma...

YOUR major problem is that at some point, quibbling and avoiding salient
points becomes indistinguishable from lying.


-- 
Ted Holden
HTE
From: jloucks@uts.amdahl.com (Jim Loucks)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Question for jloucks.....
Date: 4 Sep 92 16:56:58 GMT
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
>I s that Jloucks is back, care to comment on Ice Core Dating methods yet?

Back? I never left. I appreciate you sending me the ice core info, even
though I said I didn't want it, nor had the time or the interest to 
read it. Your mail was saved to my sbishop mailbox and eventually will be 
read or deleted, but continuing to ask me to comment on it only makes
me less interested in reading it.

I only read a fraction of the t.o articles, if someone wants to ask
me a question, try email.

-- 
Jim Loucks           jloucks@uts.amdahl.com 
{apple, pyramid, sun, uunet}!amdahl!jloucks
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: ICR and Hugh Ross
From: lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Date: 31 Aug 1992 18:24 MST  
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <2AA2B0ED.23928@ics.uci.edu>, bvickers@ics.uci.edu (Brett J. Vickers) writes...
>lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) writes:
>>I have a single extra copy of each of the July and August 1991 issues
>>of the ICR's _Acts & Facts_ and _Impact_ periodicals.  The two _Impact_s
>>are attacks on Hugh Ross.
> 
>Just curious:  Does the ICR call Hugh Ross' Christianity, faith,
>or lack thereof into question?

The conclusion of the July 1991 _Impact_ contains this sentence:  "Dr.
Ross claims to believe in the fundamental truths of Christianity, but
he is undermining the very integrity of the Bible itself, which teaches
these truths, when he rejects the clear teachings of Scripture on the
foundational doctrines of special creation in six solar days, the entrance
of suffering and death into the world through Adam's sin, and the global
cataclysmic flood--all in order to try to harmonize the Bible with the
discredited uniformitarian theories of the evolutionary philosophers."
The August 1991 _Impact_ concludes with a paragraph which contains the
much softer sentence:  "We recognize that Dr. Ross accepts many fundamental
truths of Christianity, such as the deity and virgin birth of Christ,
Christ's vicarious atonement, and salvation by faith."

So no, neither calls his Christianity or faith into question.
(The ICR's attacks are fairly mild compared to the Bible-Science
Association's.)

Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Subject: Re: macroevolution
Organization: University of Joensuu
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 17:36:43 GMT

pockling@fraser.sfu.ca (richard pocklington) writes:
>	We leave scientific "facts" and "laws" open to question
>because that is the nature of science.  Please feel free to question
>but no one appreciates it if you throw tomatoes.

	Sounds OK. It can happen here, but in the real world such theories are
	not seen that way. Evolution is seen as a proven fact, which it isn't. 
	I'm well aware of the contents of the average books handling evolution
	theory. I know most claims. I don't think it's relevant to discuss about
	small details, when it makes you forget the complete picture ? Besides, 
	those questions have arosen here many times and they have lead to no
	conclusions. When you seem to be a professional of some kind then we
	could have an interesting discussion, without throwing tomatoes. 
	Perhaps you can answer my questions. I try to ask easily. 

	I have been wondering, how could Huia-bird have developed, when both 
	sexes use their bills together to get nourishment from flowers. 

	Then, in the wedge migratory birds (cranes, swans, scoters, geese etc.)
	there is an interesting solution: Birds help each other to move to a
	wintering site, and in this order the most powerful individuals must
	take the heaviest and most dangerous tasks as leaders of the wedge. In
	this way usually happens that those birds die more than normal members
	in the wedge. That sounds silly, if you think of the natural selection.
	                     
	Some species have taken properties from the individuals of totally 
	different groups. Parasitic Jaeger uses the hunting strategy of 
	European Sparrowhawk, Sandpipers and wagtails act similarly etc. .

	I tried to find a bit uncommon topics. 
-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint

	No ITU, love, evolution.           Tuusniemi ! Siis imein suut !
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: david_s@gribb.hsr.no (Sjen, David Andreas   8-94)
Subject: And what about the decay in the speed of light?
Organization: Rogaland University Centre
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 14:48:36 GMT

Has anyone out there read the report 'The Atomic Constants, Light and Time'
by Trevor Norman and Barry Setterfield, issued by the Stanford Research 
Institute in August 1987? I have read it, and to me it sounds very 
convincing (yes, I believe in literal inspiration of the Bible), although I 
am not competent enough to verify it. Briefly, it sets out to prove, by 
statistical methods, that the different values for the speed of light since 
1675 do not (statistically) form a straight curve. The curve that gives the 
best fit converges towards infinite around 4000BC. This, if true, solves 
some interesting scientific problems, like the missing mass, for instance.

Does anyone out there have any comments on this report?

:)avid
Newsgroups: talk.origins,sci.skeptic
From: duffy@aslss02.asl.dl.nec.com (Joseph Duffy)
Subject: Re: Logic and God (was: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Organization: NEC America, Inc. Irving, Texas
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 20:03:07 GMT

In article <1992Sep1.170644.18669@rhrk.uni-kl.de> kring@efes.physik.uni-kl.de (Thomas Kettenring) writes:
>
>Okay.  Can we agree on this formula:
>
>The evolution side cannot draw an *inescapable* conclusion, but it can draw a
>conclusion that is really extremely difficult to escape from without ignoring
>vast amounts of data, or the real world as a whole.
>
>The creation side cannot draw an inescapable conclusion too, and the only
>conclusion it can draw is one that is very simple to escape from, for example by
>not believing that the Bible is meant literally or not believing that it was
>written by God.
>

I agree of course that neither side can draw an inescapable conclusion.
(I want to stress that were talking about the unrepeatable event of the
past that was the beginning of life as we now know it.) Doe's the evolution
side have vast amounts of data to indicate how this could have occured ?
(Please follow my logic, I don't want to be accused of things such as inability
of one side to produce evidence automatically makes the other side the winner.)

I've heard that some noted scientists such as Francis Crick codiscoverer
of DNA think that life could have developed elsewhere and then "flew" to
earth.(Directed panspermia?) I only bring this up to question the certainty
in the scientific community of the mechanisms by which life began. In other
words do we have an established view of this that is "really extremely
difficult" to escape from?

As for the creation side, is it true that just tossing the Bible escapes us from
the possibility that life somehow had an "assist" of some sort. This need not
make us jump to the extreme that it was God who did the assisting. If our
current reason could lead us to the conclusion that the possibilty for an
outside assist existed or was even required then we might have to consider
some sort of moderate creation view.

Just my thoughts, no dogmatism intended.
From: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Linguistics and evolution
Date: 3 Sep 92 15:47:21 GMT
Organization: animal -- coelomate -- deuterostome

In article <1992Aug31.171012@IASTATE.EDU> kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:

>  Evolution makes no claims about the direction genetic shift will go (except
>perhaps that it will no go to those that decrease reproduction). 

Drift can work counter to selection, it changes gene frequencies at
random. In small populations, average fitness can decrease noticably
due to drift.

>-|-  ___    * Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub   *

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: news@fedfil.UUCP (news)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Linguistics and evolution
Date: 4 Sep 92 02:34:40 GMT
Organization: HTE

In article <87502@netnews.upenn.edu>, weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:
 
> Moreover, only a moron who has zero comprehension of what evolution claims
> would be so bold as to state that evolutionary theory claims that things
> must develop from simpler to more complicated.  That's just a flat out lie.
> -Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)

Interesting to see that you've become a creationist, Weiner.  You're claiming
that evolution accounts for simple forms, but that God must have created
all the higher forms...  the standard version which everybody has seen, which
has humans and all other higher forms deriving from one-celled animals via
a long series of apparant violations of the 2'nd law of thermodynamics is
by your reckoning a flat out lie.

Good to know where people stand.



-- 
Ted Holden
HTE

Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: keithd@well.sf.ca.us (Keith Doyle)
Subject: Re: Science and God
Keywords: Science, God
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 04:38:06 GMT



julian@tantalus.sfu.ca (Julian Shillcock) writes:
>This might be why Jesus told his disciples to "do" things rather than
>tell people about him ( If a man hists you on one cheek...,
>if a soldier makes you carry his coat...
>Love your enemy...)
>Only by example can anyone really convince anyone else of something.

I like it.  If this is what we found Christians usually do as
proselytization, I'd have no problem with it, and I agree, they'd
probably be a heck of a lot more successful.

Keith
From: mls@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (mike.siemon)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Linguistics and evolution
Summary: a further comment on evolving complexity
Date: 31 Aug 92 19:33:07 GMT
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Aug31.183810.27358@cbnewsm.cb.att.com>, mls@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (mike.siemon) writes:
> In article <1992Aug31.154733.18325@cs.joensuu.fi>, asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:

> > 	You ignore the fact that languages have developed to simpler forms 
> > 	not more complicated as the so-called evolution "theory" claims. 

> and allow a greater range of complexity among species.  If you start
> out simple, and generate varieties that can reproduce, then you MAY
> (perhaps with a high probability, in fact) find complexity in later
> generations -- but that is not *necessarily* the case

I should also have mentioned that even if *biological* evolution would
predict a high probablility for complex organisms, given enough time
for (uninterrupted, say by asteroid impact) proliferation of species, 
that STILL says nothing about any trends in the development of languages.

Languages are not species and do not have either the constraints or the
potentials of carbon chemistry.  The bases of language are in higher
levels of physiology, especially neural anatomy -- it is possible that
THESE "materials" could limit potential complexity of human languages
or constrain them to be all at a roughly equivalent complexity (I do
not have any idea whether that is true or not; again, the relevant
definitions of "complexity" for language probably do not exist.)
-- 
Michael L. Siemon		The Son of Man has come eating and drinking;
				and you say "Behold, a glutton and a drunkard,
mls@usl.com			a friend of tax collectors and sinners."  And
standard disclaimer		yet, Wisdom is justified by all her children.
Newsgroups: talk.origins