HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Date: 23 Nov 92 14:05:45 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 <kNRmuB1w165w@kalki33>, kalki33!system@lakes writes:
>It's a question of proximity. Whether I am a million parsecs away or one
>foot away, I still receive the "supernova" observation through my
>senses. But either way, the phenomenon can be said to have been
>"directly" observed, since it was actually seen and not just imagined.

And abiogenesis is observed from billions of years away.  Looking at a
fossil is neither more nor less direct than light from distant galaxies.
Anything could have happened in the intervening space/time, yet we make
do.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: jgacker@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker)
Subject: Repeat of Kalki challenge
Organization: Goddard Space Flight Center
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 20:35:00 GMT


James G. Acker (jgacker@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov) wrote:
:      But first, to make sure you're up to the task, please
: define and state the significance to the abiogenesis
: investigation of the following five terms:
: 
:      1.  Catalysis
:      2.  Gibbs free energy
:      3.  Chelation
:      4.  Endothermic reaction
:      5.  Polarity
: 
: If you do not understand the significance, I will be glad to
: explain the definition of each term and why they are
: important to abiogenesis theories, particularly the deep sea
: hot-spring hypothesis.
: 
:      Also, do you admit/understand/know that organic
: compounds such as long-chain hydrocarbons (lipids), amino
: acids, carboxylic acids, and thioesters can be formed simply
: and abiotically by electrical discharge in a reducing
: atmosphere (for example), or through condensation reactions
: in a suitable media?  If you do not admit that these basic
: chemical constituents could be formed under conditions
: characteristic of the primordial Earth, I'm willing to
: explain that, too, but I hope to be able to start with more
: advanced concepts.

:      Jim "ready when you are, Kalki" Acker
:      jgacker@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov
: 
: P.S.  Due to computer network difficulties, my responses
: will not always be prompt.  But they will be good.

	My posting difficulties are in the past.  Do you want
references to give you a start, oh Kalki?   Or are you and
your multiple-personalities frantically searching the libraries
so that you can have something to say on this subject?
	Let's discuss a REAL theory of abiogenesis.  C'mon, give
it your best shot.

	I'm waiting.
From: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: What is consciousness?
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 92 04:22:29 EST
Reply-To: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Organization: Kalki's Infoline BBS, Aiken, SC, USA

TMakinen writes:

> In article <54D5TB8w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
> >> combination of material elements? No, of course not. :) :) :)
> >
> >You are lying when you say that you think "he is gone" when your
> >computer crashes. You do not think this at all.
> 
> -15 for not understanding sarcasm with three smileys

-30 for replying to a serious statement with sarcasm.

Sincerely,
Kalki Dasa


       -------------------------------------------------------
      |  Don't forget to chant:   Hare Krishna Hare Krishna   |
      |                           Krishna Krishna Hare Hare   |
      |                           Hare Rama Hare Rama         |
      |                           Rama Rama Hare Hare         |
      |                                                       |
      |   Kalki's Infoline BBS Aiken, South Carolina, USA     |
      |        (kalki33!kalki@lakes.trenton.sc.us)            |
       -------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: amorgan@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Crunchy Frog)
Subject: Re: Let's cut the crap, Ted
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 04:00:52 GMT

In article <113@fedfil.UUCP> news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
>In article <1992Nov15.081014.21876@klaava.Helsinki.FI>, 
>  cust_ts@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Tero Sand) writes:
>
>> There are zillions of flaws in your/Velikovsky's/whoever's 'theory', but
>> let's concentrate on two.
> 
>> 1. How did Earth stay in one piece inside the Roche limit?
>> 2. How did life survive Earth's journey to its present orbit?
>
>There's a really simple answer to both questions, and it's the same answer:
>
>I haven't got the slightest idea.

So once again Ted, since there is no evidence for the attenuation of
gravity, since there is no known mechanism for producing it, since there
is no known way by which we could get from Saturn to here without freezing,
since (despite your fascination with weightlifters) there is no reason to 
believe it is necessary, since your interpretation of myths is somewhat
suspect, and since we have a perfectly good model now.... 

	why should we believe you?

I have no problem with you (or anyone) saying "I don't know" every now
and then.  The problem is that your claim is so unusual that you are
going to have to be able to answer those questions before anyone will
take you seriously.  They seem to me to be fairly fundamental.

>Ted Holden
>HTE

C Frog
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: bobsarv@microsoft.com (Bob Sarver)
Subject: _Darwin_on_Trial			
Date: 23 Nov 92 18:43:12 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.
Distribution: world		


I saw a talk show last night with a fellow named Peter E. Johnson, Ph.D,
who wrote a book called "Darwin on Trial".  Does anyone know anything about
this book, or this guy's credentials?

He started off by sounding reasonable.  Then he started discussing the 
origin of Darwin's theory--making mention of the great social changes of
the last century.  He then stated that Darwinism had at its central core
something called "positivisitic science":  the belief that everything must
be provable / testable by science, and that science must have a demonstrable
answer to any phenomenon; a simple "We don't know" is not (according to
Johnson) acceptable to Darwinism.

Has anyone heard of this guy or his book?
From: news@fedfil.UUCP (news)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Questions for Ted H.
Date: 24 Nov 92 03:53:34 GMT
Organization: HTE

In article <98697@netnews.upenn.edu>, weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:
 
> The strength and stupidity of Ted's antagonism towards McGowan was enough
> to convince me that McGowan's book was not only dead-on regarding lots of
> dinosaurian things, but that it must also be very clear and that it was no
> doubt charming.  So I ordered the book, sight unseen, and was very pleased
> with it.
> Thanks Ted!

What the *** are you talking about?  I have no antagonism towards McGowan or
his book.  Several things from that book support my own arguments, as seen
on t.o.  In fact I RECOMMEND the book, even to idiots such as yourself.



-- 
Ted Holden
HTE
From: TMakinen
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Organization: <none>
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 92 17:08:59 GMT

In article <4q58TB10w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
>Right, evidence. Then show us a species changing into another species.
>Show us amoebas being formed from molecules. Go ahead, show us the
>evidence!

Shut up and read the FAQs. There are more evidence than you (pl.) would prefer.

Teemu
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: What is consciousness?
From: kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu
Date: 17 Nov 92 03:39:47 EST
Organization: Wesleyan University

In article <aas9TB1w165w@kalki33>, kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
> kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu writes:
> 
>>    What characteristic of viruses makes them alive?  I'm talking
>> about an empirical characteristic like metabolism, not something
>> vague like consciousness.
> 
> Since we do not consider life to be a function of matter or material
> interaction (the converse is true), we do not consider this question
> answerable. Life is revealed by the presence of consciousness, and if
> one is unable to ascertain that there is consciousness present, then one
> cannot say whether there is life. If by "characteristic of viruses" you
> mean the physical properties or behavior of the material body of the
> virus, then our answer is that no characteristic of viruses "makes" them
> alive. Rather, it is the fact that they are alive that makes them able
> to manifest these characteristics.

   You still haven't said why you consider them to have consciousness.
I certainly can't tell if a virus has consciousness, so I guess they're
definitely not alive.  I also can't tell if a plant has consciousness,
so plant's aren't alive either.

   Do I get points for not having my question answered?  Is there any
bonus for having a circular argument used (like "all things that are 
alive have consciousness"/"life is revealed by consciousness")?

> The virus body is perhaps the simplest of all carbon-based forms, but
> carbon based forms are not the only forms in which life is found.

   Can you give an example of non-carbon-based life?  If not then such
an assertion is unfounded, since you have yourself demanded an example 
of abiogenesis.

   Anyway, I agree with whoever suggested we ignore Kalki; this will
be my last reply to him, and I say we all join in a t.o-wide boycott.

Karl   
------
"Find a great ideal, a great purpose, marry it, and raise a family."
					 --Negativland, "U2"
From: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 92 14:44:30 EST
Reply-To: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Organization: Kalki's Infoline BBS, Aiken, SC, USA

weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:

> In article <e0N3TB8w165w@kalki33>, kalki33!system@lakes writes:
> >If there isn't a model for abiogenesis "yet", then why do supposedly
> >reputable scientists make the premature claim that life arose from
> >non-life?
> 
> Because the evidence points very strongly in that direction.
> 
> >	   Unless a model can be shown to be correct, then it is not
> >scientific to claim that the phenomenon occurred, is it?
> 
> I suppose you also agree that it was terribly unscientific to say that
> "supernovae occur" before 1987?  Crackpot time!

When were supernovae first observed?
When was abiogenesis first observed?

Sincerely,
Kalki "with scientists like these, who needs the ICR" 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: timi@mendel.berkeley.edu ( Tim Ikeda)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Us? Them?
Date: 19 Nov 1992 01:48:42 GMT
Organization: /etc/organization
NNTP-Posting-Host: mendel.berkeley.edu

From: robd@cherry09.cray.com (Robert Derrick) - Who enviably has too much
free time on his hands...

>Following the "us" list is the "them" list.  It is kind of sad and
>pathetic.  Please be gentle.  ;^)
>
>US:
>Alan Feuerbacher
>[...]
>Tim Ikeda
>...

!!!!!

Hey! Wait a second!  The only things I remember posting was some stuff
about "emergent properties" and the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
That's enough to get on the "US" list? Hell, I spend too much of my time
trying to get off lists (especially the twice-weekly "Land's End" catalog
mailing list)!

Very low standards, I'd say.

-Tim Ikeda
From: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Date: 15 Nov 92 16:17:02 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 <w0D5TB9w165w@kalki33>, kalki33!system@lakes writes:
>> No one believes in random molecular combinations.  Molecules combine
>> and break up according to the laws of physics and chemistry, which are
>> not random.  If you don't take this into account in the calculation,
>> it's a proof of nothing.

>By "random molecular combination" is meant that the initial positions
>of the molecules and their velocities are supposed to be randomly
>distributed within a region, not that any molecule is presumed to be
>able to combine with any other molecule.

So what is his method of calculating probabilities and information?
You said it was a _proof_ mind you, which means that he must start
with the laws of physics and chemistry.  Where do they enter into
the calculations?

If he doesn't address the broken symmetry issues, he's a crackpot.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: stassen@alc.com (Chris Stassen)
Subject: Flood (of gibberish)
Organization: The Lion's Den, San Jose
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 18:43:35 GMT

Yet another new-user floods the group without first bothering to read
the FAQs.  If we can get one more before Christmas, I think 1992 will
be a record year for such occurrences (for as long as I've been keeping
track, anyway).

Below are the top twenty posters, by bytes posted to talk.origins, for
postings received at this site over the past seven days:

====		======  	=====		===========================
Rank    	Bytes		Posts		Poster/address
====		======  	=====		===========================
  1		202186		 70		kalki33!system
  2		 90433		 31		Warren_Vonroeschlaub
  3		 72335		 13		Chris_Colby
  4		 60859		 12		James_Meritt
  5		 37347		  8		Mickey_Rowe
  6		 33252		  9		Richard_Harter
  7		 31288		  8		Andy_Peters
  8		 29341		  5		brinkman@si151a.llnl.gov
  9		 27176		  9		Loren_King
 10		 27031		 14		kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu
 11		 24986		  7		Stephen_Doe
 12		 24877		 10		Robert_Derrick
 13		 23727		  5		Ray_Ingles
 14		 22629		  6		Seth_L._Kroger
 15		 21388		 15		Matthew_P_Wiener
 16		 20204		 14		Mark_Isaak
 17		 18234		  9		Tero_Sand
 18		 16833		  7		Daniel_Norman_Johnson
 19		 16203		  7		Ted_Holden
 20		 16002		  3		Onar_Aam
====		======  	=====		===========================

[There are 7 other posters over have posted 10,000 bytes but did not make
 the list, and 68 posters under who have posted less than 10,000 bytes.]
--
Chris Stassen			408-943-0630			stassen@alc.com
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: bseymour@encore.com (Burch Seymour)
Subject: Re: Questions for Ted H.
Organization: Encore Computer Corporation
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 13:07:15 GMT

news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:

>RECOGNIZE when they are outside the areas of their expertise.  For instance,
>there was a fellow who was a/the pioneer of the transister, and went on to
>become a famous non-politically-correct genetic theorist.

>Were this fellow to wish to tell me something related to transisters, I'd
>listen eagerly.  Some of his other areas of interest would probably draw
>a reaction of (you reading this, Harter?), BULLSHIT.  Caramba.


So we should listen to a psychologist (or was it psychiatrist?) who makes
astounding claims about physics?

And how about you Ted? I thought you were a software engineer? 
Yet you claim to present great insight on matters of history, physics,
physiology, and chemistry.

You might not have shot yourself in the head. But you hit your foot
pretty good!

-bs-
From: salem@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Bruce Salem)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Bales is a liar: evidence - one case
Date: 16 Nov 1992 22:55:51 GMT
Organization: Stanford Univ. Earth Sciences
NNTP-Posting-Host: pangea.stanford.edu

In article <7602@tekig7.PEN.TEK.COM> bobb@tekig1.PEN.TEK.COM (Robert W Bales) writes:
>I must disagree.  If I have not answered them satisfactorily, I have answered
>them unsatisfactorily, which means I have answered them!

	Well, I'll be Damned! We ARE to be so BLESSED with your merest
effort to EVEN reply, even if that reply is but an evasion or a meaningless
answer!

	Spare me, and go back to where you came from, Mr Bales.

	An evasion is an evasion and nothing else.

Bruce Salem

Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: robd@cherry09.cray.com (Robert Derrick)
Subject: Re: What is consciousness?
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: 20 Nov 92 16:20:01 CST

Tim Ikeda (timi@mendel.berkeley.edu) wrote:
: 
: How can a "manufactured" virus be distinguished from a physically
: identical, "conscious" virus?  Based on the stereotyped, "reductionist"
: view of "orthodox" science, we should not be able to tell the difference
: between the two viruses.  How would the "exanded, non-physical" paradigm
: which you have suggested, be able to accomplish the differentiation?

KD is not likely to tell you.  So I will tell you, and then, if KD
disagrees, he/she/it/they can leap to the defense.

NOTE for the HI: this post is virtually content free, and may be
	consumed with little or no intellectual edification

In Thompson's Introduction, he says,

     The ultimate goal of these procedures is to elevate the
     consciousness of the individual jivatma [soul] so that
     he can reciprocate with the Absolute Person on a direct,
     personal level.  Once this is accomplished, the person
     attains incontrovertible knowledge of the nature and
     meaining of his own existence.   [p.8]

That is, the first way that life can be told from non-life is for the
life itself to get cozy with the Cosmic Muffin, until through a personal
contact, the jivatma becomes aware of itself.  In most of life, the
jivatma is drowsing, so a virus jivatma is not likely to ever wake up
long enough to put a call through to the Big Cheese.

Method number two would be for the viri to be observed by someone who
had achieved the ultimate in realization, as described above, and then
that jivatma would be able to immediately recognize other jivatma, even
in their most primative state.

The big question, for me, is where does the virus jivatma come from (no
sperm!), and when a virus is dismantled in a lab, where does the jivatma
go, since at this point the virus is quite dead (assuming it was alive
in the first place, which is also subject to some debate, however not
amongst the devotees of bhakti-yoga, therefore, of no purpose in this
context).  When the pieces of the dead virus are reassembled, the virus
becomes viable again, so to speak.  Does its former jivatma zoom back
from whereever it has been waiting?  Does it get a new jivatma?  Does it
not get one, in which case, the enlightened yogi (a person, in this case,
not a National Park bear) would be able to tell, just by looking at it.
Probably doesn't even need a look.  Just a mention would suffice.

So, the answer is, an enlightened person obtains methods of observation
that are beyond ordinary ken, and natural technology, but are just as
real as the words you are reading now.  This extra-ordinary ability
enables them to directly contact any jivatma in question.

Any questions?
--

rob derrick				robd@cherry.cray.com
From: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Couldn't find the book
Summary: hairy chicken hairy chicken chicken chicken hairy hairy
Date: 19 Nov 92 20:05:01 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology

Last night I remembered that there was an Eastern religion specialty
book store in my neighborhood, so holding my nose, I decided to see
if I could find a copy to browse.  Not only did they not have a copy,
their Vedic catalogue came up empty.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: Flood (of gibberish)
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 23:38:07 GMT

In article <1992Nov17.184335.15092@alc.com>, stassen@alc.com (Chris Stassen)
writes:
> Yet another new-user floods the group without first bothering to read
> the FAQs.  If we can get one more before Christmas, I think 1992 will
> be a record year for such occurrences (for as long as I've been keeping
> track, anyway).
> 
> Below are the top twenty posters, by bytes posted to talk.origins, for
> postings received at this site over the past seven days:
> 
> ====		======  	=====		===========================
> Rank    	Bytes		Posts		Poster/address
> ====		======  	=====		===========================
>   1		202186		 70		kalki33!system
>   2		 90433		 31		Warren_Vonroeschlaub
>   3		 72335		 13		Chris_Colby

  Hello, hello?  Tap, tap.  Ah.

  I would like to start by thanking Kalki, without whom this would never have
been possible.  Thanks to his reams of misinformation, there was no need to work
hard, as even the simplest correction requires large quantities of basic
information to even get started.

  i would secondly like to thank Ted.  If he had been up to his old self, and
posting at his regular rate this week, I would most certainly have come in a
poor third.

  And now, in hopes of keeping this record pace, I will quote the entire texts
of Shakespear, Chaucer, and Asimov.

.include BIGFILE.TXT

 |  __L__
-|-  ___  Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub
 |  | o | kv07@iastate.edu
 |/ `---' Iowa State University
/|   ___  Math Department
 |  |___| 400 Carver Hall
 |  |___| Ames, IA  50011
 J  _____
From: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Kalki Suggestions
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 92 10:33:07 EST
Reply-To: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Organization: Kalki's Infoline BBS, Aiken, SC, USA

dmu5391@hertz.njit.edu (David M. Utidjian Esc stnt) writes:

> I propose we ignore Kalki until he has had the good grace to
> read some of the popular and readily available literature
> that is available on the net (see FAQs) and from libraries or
> local bookstores.  By that time one of us may have had time
> to get a hold of his(their) book and have read it.

Yes, yes, by all means keep posting these letters about how we should be
ignored!

> It seems like a rapidly degenerating thread...  Kalki is already
> entering baby-talk-taunt-mode.  Once that happens it will not
> get very far.

Yes, yes, rapidly degenerating. Thread comprehension proportional to the
square of the attention span of the evolutionist.

> Kalki et. al; has just posted umpteen articles which are 
> repetitively boring.  These articles are filling up the newsfeed
> and making it difficult to read this group.  Such people as the
> Kalki(s) leave me wondering if people are born/created to have
> such personalities or whether they figure out how to do it all
> by themselves.  

Yes, yes. Very boring to listen to the same things over and over.
Solution: please hear it the first time.

Sincerely,
Kalki Dasa


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