HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: salem@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Bruce Salem)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Profound disappointment
Date: 30 Dec 1992 23:09:17 GMT
Organization: Stanford Univ. Earth Sciences
NNTP-Posting-Host: pangea.stanford.edu

In article <C03632.IKA@cs.psu.edu> schwartz@roke.cs.psu.edu (Scott Schwartz) writes:
>    The sad thing to learn from this is that, for your average
>creationist, science and velikovskiism probably don't look all that
>different.  Very likely creationists think that scientists are
>unreasonable in the same way that scientists think velikovskiites are.
>Ted is trying to illuminate that twisted point.  Moreover, by
>defending velikovsky Ted is able to mock science in a way that
>creationists cannot.  They are either required to pretend to
>scientific validity, or compelled to reject science outright on behalf
>of religion.  Ted, on the other hand, could pretend to embrace science
>while actually presenting a parody that is intended to damn it.  To a
>creationist this looks great.  They say to themselves, "Look at all
>the patent nonsense these scientists come up with.  We've always known
>it, but now everyone will realize it!  And if they don't realize it,
>we've taken a bite out of the evilutionist conspiracy".

	On the other hand it is fairly easy to criticize Velikovski for
trying to do what every Biblical Literalist would love, to make sacred
texts into history. He weaves this complex yarn to make symbols in
ancient texts suggest some fantastic past, amd what a refuge that is
from the miscontents of the here and now. The fallacy is the same one
we've heard before, the physical Universe is too weak to stand before
the will of a supernatural force which degraded some ancient paradise
into the present. And the message of that is that our current state,
presumably of sin and suffering, is due to some will beyond us who
is very concerned with telling us how puny we are.

	It is alot harder for the champions of such tales that we
are stuck in this boring existance, which after a good hard look
isn't so boring afterall, but that whatever mess we make for ourselves
is often due to our own folly. There is no one else to blame, and that
we may be going it alone to give our lives meaning, although we may not
be so unique as to be alone in this Universe.

Bruce Salem


Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: kring@efes.physik.uni-kl.de (Thomas Kettenring)
Subject: Posting from other groups: Solar system stability
Organization: FB Physik, Universitaet Kaiserslautern, Germany
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 19:47:25 GMT

>From: ref@CS.CMU.EDU (Robert Frederking)
>Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space,sci.physics,sci.environment
>Subject: Solar system stability (Was: averting doom)
>Message-ID: <C031Kx.7CL.2@cs.cmu.edu>
>Date: Wed, 30 Dec 92 18:22:09 MET
>Article-I.D.: cs.C031Kx.7CL.2
>References: <JMC.92Dec29211051@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
>Sender: news@cs.cmu.edu (Usenet News System)
>Reply-To: ref@cs.cmu.edu (Robert Frederking)
>Organization: Center for Machine Translation, Carnegie Mellon University
>Lines: 9
>In-Reply-To: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU's message of 29 Dec 92 21:10:51
>Originator: ref@DHAKA.MT.CS.CMU.EDU
>Nntp-Posting-Host: dhaka.mt.cs.cmu.edu
>
>The latest issue of S&T mentions some recent work done using chaos
>theory and large computers to see whether the solar system is stable.
>Their finding (I forget who it was now) was that millimeter
>perturbations in the orbits of the planets do cause chaotic changes in
>the long run.  The good news (for people who don't like chaotic
>orbits) is that the amount of time it takes for something ``really
>bad'' to become probable is on the order of a trillion years [i.e.,
>longer than the solar system will exist in its present form anyway].
>``Really bad'' is for a planet to be ejected, a collission, etc.

Of course, this is uniformitarianistical bullshit; Velikovsky knew better,
without needing computers or any knowledge of the subject...
(S&T is Sky and Telescope, I guess)

--
thomas kettenring, 3 dan, kaiserslautern, germany
"Every three months I tell all of the new recruits that they are supposed to
stand here and not there to get their uniforms, but they just don't learn!"
From: cust_ts@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Tero Sand)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Profound disappointment
Date: 31 Dec 92 07:56:49 GMT
Organization: University of Helsinki

In article <187@fedfil.UUCP> news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
>complex lifeforms are traceable back to dust via evolution, and I do not
>believe that there is any way of demonstrating the multi-million year
>timeframes commonly given out for ages of life on this earth.

Ever heard of radioactive dating?

	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: lmh@iago.caltech.edu (Henling, Lawrence M.)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Throop/Nietzsche problems
Date: 24 Dec 1992 15:30 PDT
Organization: California Institute of Technology
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: iago.caltech.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <183@fedfil.UUCP}, news@fedfil.UUCP (news) aka ted holden writes...
}this earth, is used as a magic wand to explain the rise of man and other 
}super complex creatures via an almost infinitely long chain of violations of
}the second law of thermodynamics, over an almost infinitely long expanse
}of time, any one of which would be nearly impossible.

 Creationism: An almost infinitely long chain of misinterpretations of
the second law of thermodynamics.

larry henling  lmh@shakes.caltech.edu
From: bvickers@valentine.ics.uci.edu (Brett J. Vickers)
Subject: Ignorance in high places
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Organization: Univ. of Calif., Irvine, Info. & Computer Sci. Dept.
Date: 27 Dec 92 07:16:43 GMT

	"There's no way this extraordinarily complicated
	 mechanism known as the human body just happened
	 to come up from slime and ooze someplace.  When
	 I make an incision with my scalpel, I see organs
	 of such intricacy that there simply hasn't been
	 enough time for natural evolutionary processes to
	 have developed them."

		- Dr. C. Everett Koop
		  Former US Surgeon General
--
Brett J. Vickers
bvickers@ics.uci.edu
From: sjchmura@kimbark.uchicago.edu (steven joseph chmura)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Throop/Nietzsche problems
Date: 2 Jan 93 07:26:47 GMT
Reply-To: sjchmura@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago

In article <182@fedfil.UUCP> news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
>
>Consider the most grandiose nation ever put together (the Mongol
>Empire), as well as the longest lasting (the Byzantine), and ask
>yourself, "Where are they today?  What remains of them?"
>
>And then consider that the empire which Jesus established is still with
>us, that the best architecture on earth is still the collection of
>temples built in his honor.  Consider that the esteem in which Christ is
>
>That has to be what gets to the Throops of the world.  How much money
>did you make preaching evolution this year, Throop?  How many people
>built temples and cathedrals in honor of Darwin this year?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Hmmm, well the NIH and NSF sure in hell handed out a lot of money this
year.  Darwin's name is held, at least in many classes I have attended,
with more reverence than J.C and the twelve :)


>See what I mean?  Throop just doesn't get it.  The fact that man's
>entire existence becomes utterly meaningless under this system does not
                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Come now, you are obviously well educated.  I find it hard to believe
 that you would try and use such a trivial argument in this forum.  In
Phil101 textbook example  was often used:

Classic argument:
	Man#1: Without god I am nothing.
	Man#2: Why

	Man#1:  I am so small.  This planet is so huge.  Bill Cosbey
		has so much money and I have nothing.  I want to
		shoot myself
	
	Man#2:  How does god make you worth "more"?
	
	Man#1:  Because he loves me....

	Man#2:  If you were 1000 miles tall, hence not so "small", would
		you be more significant?

	Man#1:  Duhhh

 	Man#2:  So how does god loving you make you feel any bigger, or
		stronger, or better than Bill Cosbey?


......

And so on.

When someone is clinically depressed, statements like these often arrise.
Belief in god has never been shown to keep people from shooting themselves.


>
>You're offering mankind    N - O - T - H - I - N - G.
Well, except maybe knowledge.

>[stuff about afterlife now able to be proven deleted out of horror :) ]
>unknowable to us in this world no longer appears to be entirely the case.
Since there is an "empire to JC", why not ask the NIH or NSF to fund the
research.

Sigh, because they're giving it all to that scum Darwin.

Ted, read the man you are using in your defense, "Mystical explanations
are considered deep.  Truth is, they are not even superficial" - F.N.

-- 
________________________________________________________________________________Steven Chmura				University of Chicago Medical School(M1)
  "Given enough time, the impossible becomes probable, and the probable
	inevitable.."  -George Wald, "On the Origins of Life"
From: swf@tools3teradata.com (Stan Friesen)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Velikovsky, Einstein, and Cohen
Date: 21 Dec 92 20:43:46 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <1992Dec15.205012.10119@cis.uab.edu>, hamilton@hitler.uucp writes:
|> In article <1614@tdat.teradata.COM> swf@tools3teradata.com (Stan Friesen) writes:
|> >Oh, just lovely, such *reliable* sources, NOT!
|> >If the Avon Guide is the little pink pocket size, it is a piece of trash.
|>  ^^
|> 
|> I think that Stan Friesen is confused about which dinosaur field 
|> guide is which.  The larger one must be the Avon guide since the
|> small pink one is the Mary Kay field guide.

Notice, I *did* say 'if'! (p.s. that means I was aware my memory was incomplete).

If I posted from home I could have looked it up (I have the larger green one).

The bigger green one (presumably the Avon Guide) is *decent*, as a beginners book.
It is still hopelessly out of date (the number of new finds in the last 5 years
is stupendous).  Also, it gives size/shape silhouettes for *every* genus, even
those known only from a few isolated bones (thus subtly suggesting more certainty
than is actually justified).

I would never use it for more than a very basic ID of a type of dinosaur.

The small pink one I would not even buy!

-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: Talk.Origins Wrestling Federation
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 15:36:57 GMT

In article <1992Dec23.135317.27460@nsisrv.gsfc.nasa.gov> jgacker@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker) writes:
}news (news@fedfil.UUCP) wrote:
}: In article <1992Dec21.135734.20632@linus.mitre.org>, m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
}: As I've noted before, Mitre is PLENTY close enough.
}: Any time.
}
}	You guys are in the Washington D.C. area?  We really ought to have a
}nice chat over coffee sometime.  Maybe in the Natural History museum, where
}we can look at Pre-Cambrian stromatolites and dinosaur skeletons.

How about next to the elephant that ted keeps misusing?
From: Dr.Pepper@f241.n103.z1.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Creation Evidences
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Nov 17 1992
Date: 20 Dec 92  23:52:00

 > From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
 > Message-ID: <ksand-151292163725@wintermute.apple.com>

 > I guess some people enjoy lack of information. However, if you
 > really want more evidence about evolution, get to the nearest
 > library, or maybe take a trip to Grand Canyon, or take the bike
 > to the nearest natural science museum.

Hmm, that reminds me. I recall an announcement that ICR folks were going to
explore the Grand Canyon and discover stuff there, has that been written up
yet?

+--------------------------+--------------------------------------+
| 10                    2  | Garden Grove Institute of Technology |
|        DR PEPPER         | Community Outreach Center            |
|                       4  |                                      |
+--------------------------+ Snail Addr: Unit #1, 7872 Trask      |
| Real americans don't     |             Westminster, Ca  92683   |
| pledge allegiance, they  | Modem:      714-894-7039             |
| make the government earn | Fidonet:    1:103/241                |
| it.                      | Candynet:   42:1001/1                |
|                          | Internet:   Dr.Pepper@f241.n103.z1   |
|                          |              .fidonet.org            |
+--------------------------+--------------------------------------+

---
From: swf@tools3teradata.com (Stan Friesen)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Next?
Date: 22 Dec 92 19:04:30 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <1992Dec17.133858.6071@linus.mitre.org>, m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
|> 
|> What is next?
|> 
|> talk.origins:  On the evolutionary side, homo sapiens is seen as merely the most recent
|> step in a series of rungs in a ladder.  What do you see as the "next rung"? 

There is no next rung because there *are* *no* *rungs*.
Evolution is *not*, I repeat *not* a ladder, it is a mucking great *bush*.

Humans are not even the most recent species to evolve.  There are several new
species that have evolved in historical times.

-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
Xref: sparky talk.origins:15931 alt.atheism:24323
From: dekorte@ibm5.scri.fsu.edu (Stephen L. DeKorte)
Newsgroups: talk.origins,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Genes for Religious Tendency
Date: 27 Dec 92 05:29:02 GMT
Reply-To: dekorte@ibm5.scri.fsu.edu (Stephen L. DeKorte)
Followup-To: talk.origins

In article <1992Dec9.175903.23582@city.cs> lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun) writes:
In article <1992Dec7.184027.6638@cbnewsh.cb.att.com> young@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (young.u.huh) writes:
>>They can simply say, "We're just born this way." 
>A very convenient line of argument. You can use it to `excuse'
>any sort of behaviour. 

Only if one falsely assumes that free will is neccesary for the
administration of punishment. It all comes down to what you
 consider the purpose of punishment to be.
Ex:Ask yourself:
 
Is the purpose of jail to right a wrong/just an injustice/get one eye for another?

Or is it to act as a deterent to crime and to protect society from harmfull elements
by removing them from society and perphaps even reforming them?

>Anything which takes personal responsibility and answerability
>away is very popular. Take the modern theory of evolution for
>example. It denies the Creator so makes man free of His demands.

It also reminds us that nature's judgement(selection) has nothing to do
with free will. (The Devil made me say that-but dont judge me,least yea be judged)

Steve Dekorte

Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: sdoe@nmsu.edu (Stephen Doe)
Subject: Re: Cosmos without Gravitation
Organization: New Mexico State University
Distribution: world,public
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 18:16:29 GMT

In article <1992Dec29.164826.5044@linus.mitre.org> m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
>In article <1992Dec29.143703.7029@hsr.no> onar@hsr.no (Onar Aam) writes:
>}>13.  If planets and satellites were once molten masses...they would not have been
>}>able to
>}>obtain spherical form, especially those which do not rotate, as Mercury or the 
>}>moon (with
>}^^^^^
>}>respect to its primary)
>}
>}
>}That is simply not true. The moon is rotating (ever heard of earth rise?)
>}although only slightly. 
>
>wobbles, not rotate.  If it rotated, 100% would (eventually) become visable.
>It doesn't.

The moon does rotate, but the period of rotation equals the period of
revolution about the Earth--*that's* why the same side of the moon is
always facing us.  This is due to our tidal interaction with the moon.
If the Earth-moon system lasts long enough, someday the Earth will be
tidally locked to the moon (i. e., always present the same side.)

SD
From: jdnicoll@prism.ccs.uwo.ca (James Davis Nicoll)
Subject: Re: Cosmos without Gravitation
Organization: University of Western Ontario, London
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 19:37:59 GMT

	If  memory serves, the  Moon's 'wobble' is called
libration. It seems to me that a location should exist where
line-of-sight to the earth is intermitently interupted due
to libration. Actually,  there should a  band of locations
where earthrise/set occurs.

						James Nicoll
From: Dr.Pepper@f241.n103.z1.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Doesn't it seem logical?
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Nov 17 1992
Date: 20 Dec 92  23:56:00

 > From: jsg1@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (JONATHAN SCOTT GIBSON)
 > Message-ID: <1992Dec16.204839.37771@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu>

 > I am new to this whole conversation here, but I think that it
 > seems rather odd
 > that people can make comments about man being created from mud
 > when if you
 > look at the theory of evolution, we all just evolved from some
 > "primordial"
 > soup.  It just takes a bit of faith to believe in Creation!
 > What does it take
 > to believe in evolution?  The fact that we might have evolved
 > from some lower
 > creatures wouldn't give me a heck of a lot of self-confidence.
 > I guess the
 > fact that I was brought up in a church has a lot to do with why
 > I think the
 > way that I do, but I have seen both sides of the issue and it
 > still seems so
 > illogical that anyone could believe in such a crazy theory!

OK then, 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      |
| 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            |
+--------------------------+--------------------------------------+

---
From: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Robert Bales: nitwit or confusoid?
Date: 22 Dec 92 15:24:56 GMT
Reply-To: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Organization: Iowa State University

In article <n12a5t@ofa123.fidonet.org>, David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org writes:

    [I'm riping off David Rice's quote of the indefadigable Robert Bales]

RB> "The claims may be the same, but they are certainly not old
RB> and tired. The creationists' claims are basically that
RB> theories and conclusions about origins should be based on
RB> all of the observed facts and not be restricted to the one
RB> theory that happens to be popular."

   This was such a remarkable sentence I had to comment.  It makes or implies
the following false assertions:

   (I) Theories are a form of fact.

   (II) Scientific theories of origins conceal or hide substantial
        bodies of fact.

   (III)  Creationists do not conceal or supress facts.

   (IV) There are original creationists positions actually put forth 
        (other than by people making fun of creationists) in the last
        oh, say, decade.

I'm afraid I must concur with Jim Merrit; the man is hopeless.  (I) shows that
Bales is mouthing formula phrases without bothering to understand what he is
saying.  I mean I you don't know the _definitions_ how can you debate?  (II)
is a GOD DAMNMED LIE for which everyone from Lionel Tun to Jim Loucks has
been unable to provide and evidence at all.  I guess that proves Bob Bales is
not only a liar but a stale, unoriginal liar as well.  (III) is an obvious,
pathetic lie.  We've seen creationists attempt to ignore of supress facts 
by appeal to authority repeatedly right here on talk origins.  (IV) I can
personally testify that every scientific argument for creation and all the
theistic anti-evolution arguments I've heard on talk origins I heard in
highschool (not, thank God, from my teachers).  The formet is, of course, and
empty set :).

   In other news, did you know that any attempt to teach anything not
sanctioned in the bible is part of a one-world-government-PETA-philosophy-
communist-whichcraft-new-age-conpiracy dating back to mesopotamia?  I read
that in the paper this morning as a quote from a member of a "christian"
organization here in Iowa thats trying to do cirriculum reform for the 
public schools.  The organization is anti-evolution as well.  Given this
kind of an intellectual base is it any wonder that creationists display the 
originality of peanut butter and jelly on white bread?

Dan
Danwell@IASTATE.EDU
"Hark the Herald-Tribune sings, advertising wondrous things...
"God rest ye merry merchants may ye make the yule tide PAY...
"Angels we have heard on high, tell us to go out and BUY...
-Tom Lehrer
From: swf@tools3teradata.com (Stan Friesen)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: cotera skims Futuyma
Date: 24 Dec 92 17:35:50 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <105318@bu.edu>, colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby) writes:
|>  Evolution is fairly simple to understand once you 
|> get a few ideas straight in your head (viewing populations as
|> collections of individuals with different alleles is key, ...

Yep, This *one* idea is almost the whole ball of wax - as Ernst Mayr points out
*this* was Darwin's truly major breakthrough.  It was what made the rest of his
theory possible, and what made it so revolutionary.

|> Good, in other words Futuyma isn't making bald assertions. He is
|> presenting the evidence and explaining how it has been interpreted.
|> Are you complementing him on his writing style or don't you under-
|> stand what "inferred" means?

Chuckle.  Actually I think he is still laboring under the misapprehension that
science is supposed to *prove* things!  So he simply doesn't understand the
appropriate use of qualifiers in discussing scientific issues.

-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
From: e_p@unlinfo.unl.edu (edgar pearlstein)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: I want a reference on "origins" myths.
Date: 31 Dec 1992 20:12:05 GMT
Organization: University of Nebraska--Lincoln	
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: unlinfo.unl.edu

       Can someone direct me to a book which will discuss the many 
       "origins" and cosmology myths:  things like the world being 
       carried on the back of a great turtle, and Atlas carrying the 
       world?