HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Questions for Ted H.
Date: 22 Nov 92 16:38:45 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: sbradley@scic.intel.com (Seth Bradley)

In article <1992Nov20.195306.15590@scic.intel.com>, sbradley@scic (Seth Bradley) writes:
>THe actual reason is that Sagan has debunked Velikovsky (most scientists
>just ignore his work completely) and Ted can't handle any criticism of his
>chosen god.

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!
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: jgacker@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker)
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Organization: Goddard Space Flight Center
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 14:35:18 GMT

kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us wrote:

: A few amino acids and simple peptides. You think that's "close" to being
: life? And that experiment was done 30 years ago. Surely in 30 years the
: scientists should have gone from "close" to "life". The truth is that
: chemicals, however complicated, are not and never will be "life" at all,
: not even close, except in the imagination.

	Kalki Dafta -- the process may have taken a million years.
Provided you're willing to wait, go back and check then.

Why do I bother?

	Jim Acker
From: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: The Power of Global Consciousness
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 92 05:13:29 EST
Reply-To: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Organization: Kalki's Infoline BBS, Aiken, SC, USA

kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu writes:

> 
>    I think there are psychic emanations flowing from all this
> discussion with Kalki (pl); my ecology prof (who also teaches
> *evolution*) was talking today about "your tapeworm and you."

Gee, sounds really electric and dangerous!

Sincerely,
Kalki "Eat flaming heat-death, fascist evolutionist pigs!" 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: duffy@aslss02.asl.dl.nec.com (Joseph Duffy)
Subject: Re: Random Chess Moves
Organization: NEC America, Inc Irving TX
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 16:01:58 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.220448.7538@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> amorgan@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Crunchy Frog) writes:
>In article <1992Nov18.153354.21581@asl.dl.nec.com> 
>  duffy@aslss02.asl.dl.nec.com (Joseph Duffy) writes:
>>
>>The trouble with this analogy is that it overlooks the external influence
>>of an intelligent source. If programs and computers are making improvements
>>using trial and error coupled with randomness ... well you said it yourself
>>above, these are within *programmed* constraints, so the outcome is
>>intelligently bounded.
>
>Not really.  In this case the programmer is the universe.  The universe
>lets some things happen and not others.  It sets constraints (physical
>law) and lets things run within those constraints.  Organisms are like
>the program.  You could make the argument that this means the universe
>has a creator, let us ignore that for right now.  The important thing
>is, IMHO, the program-organism analogy shows that random mutations can
>be beneficial.
>
>C Frog
>

O.K., but then this is beginning to sound like the anthropomorphic theory (did
I spell that right?). If the "program-organism analogy" is carried to its
logical conclusion, then the universe's programmed constraints include or 
"presuppose" life. Not what one would expect from a random uncreated universe.

Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: jgacker@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker)
Subject: Re: Repeat of Kalki challenge
Organization: Goddard Space Flight Center
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 22:30:26 GMT


	Sorry, Kalki, I've got to leave for the weekend.  I'll be
looking for your erudite, reasoned, and informed responses to
my challenge on Monday.  Note:   Sometimes the system doesn't
store everything to Monday, so make sure you save a copy.

	Oh yeah:  Make sure you understand the concept of
"thermal gradient" too.

	C'ya.

	Jim "not much of a bark when you see a real theory, huh?" Acker
	jgacker@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov


Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: Bales is a liar: evidence - one case
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 14:14:49 GMT

In article <7569@tekig7.PEN.TEK.COM> bobb@tekig1.PEN.TEK.COM (Robert W Bales) writes:
}In article <1992Nov12.134857.13709@linus.mitre.org> m23364@mwunix (James
} Meritt) writes:
}
}>}  me
}
}>}I do not "still claim" something which I have not claimed to begin with. 
}
}>And if we produce the posting, complete with subject, date, and message-id,
}>in which you HAVE made this claim, will you acknowledge that you lied in
}>this instance and go away for another 6 months or so (which is how long you
}>seem to stay away when caught in the web of your own deceipt)?
}
}If you can produce a posting which says I have only scientific motives, or
}says that I do not have religious motives, I will say that I gave an untrue
}impression.  What else I say depends on the posting.  I do not think there is
}one.  Let's see it.


I'm glad that you are admitting once again that you are acting out of religious
motives, in spite of your frequent claim to the converse.
From: jviv@usmi01.midland.chevron.com (John Viveiros)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Theory of Creation and Proof
Date: 17 Nov 92 17:17:15 GMT
Organization: Chevron

In article <1992Nov17.123535.13476@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> tlode@nyx.cs.du.edu (trygve lode) writes:
>Norse Creation Theory (NCT).
> 
    [deleted for brevity]
This post gets my vote for BCTOTY (Best Creation Theory of the Year).
WITH Proof!
Also the funniest.
-- 
John Viveiros     (jviv@chevron.com)
Chevron USA        Standard disclaimer applies
Midland TX
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: The Power of Global Consciousness
From: kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu
Date: 17 Nov 92 12:58:17 EST
Organization: Wesleyan University


   I think there are psychic emanations flowing from all this
discussion with Kalki (pl); my ecology prof (who also teaches
*evolution*) was talking today about "your tapeworm and you."

Karl
------
"Find a great ideal, a great purpose, marry it, and raise a family."
					 --Negativland, "U2"
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: robd@cherry09.cray.com (Robert Derrick)
Subject: Re: Laying a trap
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: 23 Nov 92 18:38:34 CST

kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us wrote:
: 
: No, the halting problem is unsolvable. Our point was: if you give the
: machine a time interval and it is still running at the end of the
: interval, then rather than throw it out as non-halting, first spend a
: little more time trying to find something in the code that may indicate
: that it would have stopped if left alone for a little longer. That's
: all.

That's all!  Astounding!

The halting problem is insoluble.  As you observed.  (not directly, I bet)

You then claim that you can try to solve the problem by hand.

Using what?  Magick?

Because Church's Thesis says that if your program is as good as it can be,
and it is incapable of solving the problem, and I hope that this doesn't
come as too much of a shock to you, but your ability to carry out the
algorithm cannot be any more powerful that that program, and therefore
you are also incapable of solving the problem.

In other words, if you can determine whether that program will halt or not,
then there exists an algorithm that will do the same thing.  You are not
more capable than the Best Algorithm.  And your Thompson relys on Church's
Thesis for one of his main points, so I wouldn't be so quick to try to
dispute it.

Or, I suppose you could supplicate to the Supreme Being for an inspiration,
but even if you get one, it is either deducible by some algorithm, or it
is totally non-verifable.  And although it is clear that you are gullible,
I know that you are not completely gullible.  Otherwise you would also
have a fanatical belief in evolution, even though, as it is clear to all
here, you know absolutely nothing about it.
--

rob derrick				robd@cherry.cray.com
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: smullins@cidmac.ecn.purdue.edu (Scott H Mullins)
Subject: Re: Bales is a liar: evidence - one case
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 20:29:53 GMT

>smullins@cidmac.ecn.purdue.edu (Scott H Mullins) writes:
>
>> >I mentioned "design~ rather than "creation.  But since creation is the only
>> >prominent theory to include the idea of design, the presence in living
>> >organisms of characteristics of design which are not characteristics of
>> >evolutionary-type processes tends to indicate creation is a better 
>> >explanation than evolution.
>> 
>> Actually evolution does "design" things after a fashion. The fact that
>> organisms in many cases seem to be put together in a rather 
>> catch-as-catch-can way seems to argue against the "intelligent" designer
>> hypothesis. (The Panda's thumb and all that). Since there is _a_ prominent
>> theory that includes the idea of "design" then you will have to get 
>> another argument.
>
>That there is no "designer" need not be the only possible explanation
>for the various apparent idiosyncrasies in the design of organisms. 

I didn't say it was. I said that there is _another_ explanation to the 
"looks designed to me" argument.

>For
>instance, many people who do not accept the "design" concept suppose
>that God, or "the designer" would have done things differently. But this
>is only a personal opinion. Some persons might say "God would have made
>things more perfect." But this presumes that God's purpose would have
>been to make a "perfect" world. This too is only an opinion. What if
>God's purpose was not to make a perfect world, but a rough-and-ready
>world where certain kinds of rough-and-ready activities are supposed to
>be performed?
>
>An intelligent engineer, when faced with the extraordinary task of
>constructing the body plans for millions of different types of
>creatures, would probably use a basic plan that could be modified by
>some simple adjustments. This would be more efficient than trying to
>design each type of organism from scratch. In this way we can view the
>genetic code as the work of a very clever engineer.

You are anthropomorphizing god. An omniscient, omnipotent being would not
have the restrictions of a human engineer. If you are arguing that God
needs a "simple" way of doing things then does this mean that your "god"
is not omnipotent? A non-omnipotent god does not sound like a god to me,
just a very powerful alien.

>Sincerely,
>Kalki Dasa

I have a serious question. Do you understand Thompson's "proof"? 

If you do then why don't you post an outline, in your own words, of this 
proof? This would not violate any copyright laws that I know of. If you say
that you do not have time then how do you have time to post the volume that
you do?

Scott
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: molecular evolutionists
Date: 20 Nov 92 00:41:09 GMT
Organization: animal -- coelomate -- deuterostome

In article <1992Nov18.081349.12512@smds.com> rh@ishmael.UUCP (Richard Harter) writes:

>PPS: Did you know that "molecular evolutionist" is a neologism [i.e. a
>phrase of your own invention] that your readers perceive as semantic
>noise?

Actually, the term "molecular evolutionist" is used within evolutionary
biology. It refers to someone who uses molecules (usually DNA or
proteins) in their studies of evolution(*). There are quite a few of
"us" (I study molecular evolution of the histone gene family) out
there; I recently went to the New England Molecular Evolutionary
Biologists meeting and there were about 100 or so people (I'm guessing)
there.

(*) mainly determining the rates and patterns of changes in
nucleotide and amino acid sequences in populations over time
and using molecules as a basis for inferring phylogeny

Kalki's usage, however, does seem to be of their own invention.
It certainly doesn't bear any resemblance to the word as
it is usually used.

>Richard Harter: SMDS Inc.  Net address: rh@smds.com Phone: 508-369-7398 

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"

Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: TMakinen
Subject: Re: What is consciousness?
Organization: <none>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 92 16:30:44 GMT

In article <7JmDuB5w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
>-30 for replying to a serious statement with sarcasm.
                       ^^^^^^^
Is this a joke?

Teemu
From: cjhs@minster.york.ac.uk
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Kalki Suggestions
Date: 17 Nov 92 07:44:03 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of York, England

Another suggestion.

Perhaps Lionel Tun or Bob Bales would be willing to comment on Kalki?

I am presuming Lionel and Bob would like to see the theory of creationism
made available to students for their consideration. Would Kalki be an
acceptable teacher of the theory of creationism?

Felicitations -- Chris Ho-Stuart
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: mls@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (mike.siemon)
Subject: Re: In case Bales has convinced you of his honesty...
Organization: AT&T
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 05:02:47 GMT
Summary: agreed

In article <1ecippINNgr3@fido.asd.sgi.com>, livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com
(Jon Livesey) writes:

> In article <7630@tekig7.PEN.TEK.COM>, bobb@tekig1.PEN.TEK.COM
(Robert W Bales) writes:

> |> >He hasn't covered a LOT of recent items (like "how do 5 isochrons give the
> |> >same date", "how does argon get INTO an object in vacuum", "what is the
> |> >evidence for an old universe that you keep mentioning" and more.

> |> On about Septeber 24, I posted a refutation of a number of items in Jim's
> |> list, including *specifically* the above.  If Jim responded, I didn't see
...

> No, you did not!
> 
> I was prepared to stay out of this business of Mr Bales telling lies or
> not telling lies, but this is a bit much.

Agreed.  I have felt, in general, that Jim is a bit trigger-happy with
accusations like this, tending to presume that statements can have no
other context but that of his own prefernce.  However, here Bales is so
blatantly dishonest that no person of integrity can read it without a
strong protest.  Bob Bales, I regret to say, *is* a liar.
-- 
Michael L. Siemon		   "Oh, stand, stand at the window,
					As the tears scald and start;
mls@usl.com			   You shall love your crooked neighbor
standard disclaimer			With your crooked heart."
From: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 92 04:51:35 EST
Reply-To: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Organization: Kalki's Infoline BBS, Aiken, SC, USA

rowe@pender.ee.upenn.edu (Mickey Rowe) writes:

> In article <XLe5TB10w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
> 
> >In order for systems of low information content to evolve into
> >systems of high information content, there must be a source of
> >high information content somewhere in order to "guide" the natural
> >selection process. Now the question is, what is this source? 
> 
> I see a pattern here.  You're objectifying information in the same way
> that you've objectified consciousness.  Information is not a substance
> any more than heat is.  Or are you still looking for caloric or
> phlogiston?  There is no law of "conservation of information" is
> there?  Why do you suppose that is?

"Mass" is not a substance either, but a quantitative measurement of a
physical system. We have conservation of mass, and we have conservation
of information. What is the difficulty?


> >In spite of the fact that the laws of physics are very simple, and in
> >spite of the fact that scientists can not even begin to precisely
> >specify any set of initial conditions for the origin of life,
> >nevertheless, simply because they want to believe it, they claim that
> >"in principle" there is such a set of initial conditions that will turn
> >lifeless matter into living organisms in a certain period of time.
> 
> Please point to two scientists that claim this and please include
> documentation that the claim is made for the reason you cite, or
> retract your strawman.  A failure on your part to do either will gain
> me a lot of credit on the talk.origins home game...

James Watson in The Molecular Biology of the Gene, p. 54, which was
quoted in another post.

John Slater in Quantum Theory of Molecules and Solids, Vol. 1, p. vii.

Sincerely,
Kalki Dasa


       -------------------------------------------------------
      |  Don't forget to chant:   Hare Krishna Hare Krishna   |
      |                           Krishna Krishna Hare Hare   |
      |                           Hare Rama Hare Rama         |
      |                           Rama Rama Hare Hare         |
      |                                                       |
      |   Kalki's Infoline BBS Aiken, South Carolina, USA     |
      |        (kalki33!kalki@lakes.trenton.sc.us)            |
       -------------------------------------------------------
From: rowe@pender.ee.upenn.edu (Mickey Rowe)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: What is consciousness?
Date: 17 Nov 92 20:36:43 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <ooNDuB8w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
}rowe@pender.ee.upenn.edu (Mickey Rowe) writes:

}> If you really think the tendency [to] claim that what
}> people think they perceive is not what they actually perceive is
}> "strange", then you are either blind or ignorant to so much of human
}> psychology as to make any further conversation with you on the topic
}> pointless.  I invite you to retract the statement or let the
}> conversat[io]n end here.
}
}Then let the conversation end here.

Regrettably I will.

}> By the way, if you're interested I can dig up a reference for you from
}> a paper that was written by Chrisoph Koch (among others) where they
}> were trying to determine if a person is truly unconscious during
}> anesthesia.  This is one of my all time favorite quotes from a peer
}> reviewed paper.  (From memory) "Consciousness is a pre-scientific term
}> with multiple and inconsistent meanings."
}
}Matter is unconscious, the soul is always conscious. When the sense
}organs of an embodied soul are anesthetized, the soul may not be able to
}manifest its consciousness to those around it, but it is still
}conscious.

I'll translate this as "I don't really want to know what people who've
studied the phenomenon have determined; I don't even care whether or
not you can look inside a horse's mouth."  (Notice that I was kind and
left out the cackling chicken onomatopoeia.)  My response is: What
evidence do you have that "it is still conscious."?  And just what is
it that you mean by that?  Could it be that you are absolutely certain
that non-material souls exist because "you want to believe it"?

If you don't actually say anything related to what it is that science
is "ignoring" vis a vis consciousness in your next round of responses,
I think I'm going to join the unofficial Kalki boycott.

}Kalki Dasa

Mickey Rowe     (rowe@pender.ee.upenn.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: Let's cut the crap, Ted
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 16:36:54 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.

BINGO!!!!!!!!

In fact, that seems to be the really simple answer to ANY question concerning
the Talbott/Velikovsky scenario.  

Don't you find it interesting that Ted, who claims no knowledge or expertise
in any of the hard sciences (I asked) discards rational explainations in favor
of ones for which he admits to having not the slightest idea how they work?

His earlier explaination, that people fixate on what they think of as big,
exciting, and wonderful in spite of the reality of the situation seems to fit
him quite well.
From: keithd@well.sf.ca.us (Keith Doyle)
Subject: The 2nd law of Kalkidynamics
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 06:20:00 GMT



BTW, it looks to me like the Kalki's (or actually, their hero
Dr. Thomson's) arguments from information theory are simply new
flavors of the 2nd law of Thermodynamics creationist arguments.
Information (anti-entropy) cannot increase, therefore evolution
cannot occur.  (and OBTW, *growth* as well has to be included
here, as it too is an increase in information content/decrease
in entropy)

Do I get any points for recognizing mutated worn out old
creationist bogosities?

Aww, I guess not, with all the recent talk about snowflakes,
someone else must have noticed the similarity by now.

Keith