HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: salem@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Bruce Salem)
Subject: Re: Scriptural Authority Re: Does theory of evolution affect belief in God?
Organization: DSG, Stanford University
Distribution: na
Date: 16 Apr 92 07:20:59 GMT

mls@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (mike.siemon) writes:

>In article <salem.703389176@pangea.Stanford.EDU>, salem@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Bruce Salem) writes:

>> 	I grow weary of brinkman. I don't understand his problem
>> with what I said. He is making alot more out of what I said than
>> anyone else has.

>I suspect that is because others, like me, see you as too set in your
>opinion for it to be worth arguing about.  For what its worth, I *do*
>agree with Mat (with the point he is trying to make, not with the rather
>high pitch of the rhetoric he has come to, in a vain attempt to get you
>to even notice the point, let alone respond to it.)

	Oh dear, you cut me to the quick! Pray, tell me what the POINT
is. Is it that not all Christians are Creationists? Granted. Is that
that the authority of Scripture can be used to support Creationism?
Granted. Is it that there is nothing in the constitution of authority
that leads to that use? I don't agree. Is it that there are arguments
that lead away from that concluson? Granted. Is it that Christianity
is full of contradictory forces? Yes. etc. etc.

Bruce Salem
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Changing your mind
Date: 5 Apr 92 22:35:43 GMT
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

In article <1992Mar27.134118.3576@city.cs>, 
lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun) writes:
> In article <1992Mar25.201536.3837@ils.nwu.edu> 
> shafto@ils.nwu.edu (Eric Shafto) writes:
>>Interesting.  What evidence made you select Biblical Creationism as
>>the correct interpretation?
>>
> 
> The evidence was all around me. I took an intellectual step back and
> looked at the world, its wonders and complexity - the diversity of
> plants, animals and people. To my mind there was no way this could
> have `evolved' from a group of molecules. 

Why not?

> Also (I know evolutionists
> do not address this problem) how did the molecules, atoms, protons,
> electrons, neutrons etc get there in the first place? What about the
> laws of physics, mathematics and chemistry? I felt these things and
> how we got here were all linked (ok, so evolution does not include
> abiogenesis nor the existence of the physical universe, but I was
> not content with answers to only half the questions).

What this really gets down to is the origin of the universe, right?
You can take any number of answers here.  One may be that God created
the universe.  Another is that there was some sort of "big-bang" or
whatever you like.  Either way (not that these are the only ways), what
difference does it make to the theory of evolution?  God could have
created the beginning of the universe in such a way that it would progress
to exactly where it is now, and to where it will be in the future.
In this sense, God created and made use of the theory of evolution...
There isn't evidence for any of this, nor does it in anyway concern
evolutionary theory.  What's the point?
  
> Lionel Tun

Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: stassen@alc.com (Chris Stassen)
Subject: Re: Darwin's Enigma
Organization: The Lion's Den, San Jose
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 01:09:16 GMT

Jim Loucks writes, in article <351C02Wfc9LU00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com>:
> If Sunderland's claims are true, we'll see in the original transcripts
> that some evolutionary scientists speak differently behind closed doors. 

It wouldn't be surprising that many scientists may "speak differently"
to experts than to the general public.  I do it myself.  In a group of
peers, I often emphasize minor points of disagreement, to the extent of
completely ignoring a vast body of consensus which surrounds it.  This
results in my saying things that would sound ridiculous if an "outsider"
tried to read them at face value.  But it works in the context of the
crowd that I'm trying to communicate with.

How do we tell the difference between "an embarrassing admission which
would only be made behind closed doors" and "an exaggerated position taken
for the sake of making a point, which would not be presented in the same
manner to a lay audience"?  Perhaps we must understand the material to
the point where we can tell for ourselves when someone is exaggerating.

Jim Loucks also writes, in article <387s02rJc9fU00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com>:
> [Morris] was only trying to communicate that some evolutionists admit
> that there is some sort of a problem in reference to dating rocks according
> to the fossils they contain.

I am more interested in the question of whether the "sort of problem"
that is "admitted" is somehow problematic for the fossil record in
general.

Both quotations Jim produced are in regard to "index fossils," which
were in use long before the geological community accepted evolution.
What gives an "index fossil" its position in the column is *not* the
assumption of evolution, but rather geologists' experience with the
position that identical fossils hold in other locations.  We still get
a couple of creationists per year in talk.origins, the most recent
being Mr. Tun, who have been [mis]led to think otherwise.

These "problems" that the quotations discuss are indeed real -- they
mean that Eldredge has to find another method of correlation in order
to test punctuated equilibria, and that Brush wants to carefully use
every available method to test the ordering of the geologic column.
But they do not lend credence to the creationist charge that the
geological column is a product of the assumption of evolution.

[Jim reserves much of the blame for himself, then says:]
> Also, part of the blame could be your (talk.origins) experience
> with the ICR, past articles by creationists that you've found
> irritating, and many other factors that I won't go into for now.

You mean "other factors" like the fact that we're all godless atheist
communist scum?  :-/  Talk.origins might have jumped on you a little
too hard, but what role did the group play in your interpretation
of Morris' remarks?
-- 
Chris Stassen			408-943-0630			stassen@alc.com
From: eschbach@abc.wrc.xerox.com (Reiner Eschbach)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Life without God?
Date: 16 Apr 92 15:19:27 GMT
Article-I.D.: spectrum.1992Apr16.151927.27681
Organization: Xerox

In article <17520044@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM> lief@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Lief Sorensen) writes:
>Well, it is almost ten years -- remember?  About 8 years ago I posted a short
>blurb about a book titled "SCIENCE ON TRIAL" written by Douglas J. Futuyma.  It
>was copyrighted in 1983.

>Anyway, on page 96 Mr. Futuyma made a claim that I want no one to forget --
>especially Mr. Futuyma.
>
>   "The next step in the synthesis of life will be to develop RNA sequences
>   that can produce their own replicating enzymes.  This hasn't been done yet,
>   but biochemists have made such great progress in this direction that it's
>   likely that simple forms of life will be synthesized in the laboratory
>   within the next ten years."

>Would some die-hard evolutionist like to update me on the status of these
>predictions?

Leif, 
I don't think you mean this to be any disprove of evolution. Mr. Futuyama's
statements you cite would only show that he overestimated advances and
capabilities ( I do not know the progress made in the research ).
There is a famous example of wrong estimation of our capabilities around:
controlled fusion. In this case, we even know how the process works, but we
are still unable to do it. And I think that we are currently roughly 30 years
after the first predicted operating fusion reactor.
So, all your statment does is show us the unpredicatability of science, in
contrast to technology and engineering. Plus, it teaches us to take all
predictions with a grain of salt.

Reiner Eschbach

Breakthroughs are to be reported every 6 months.
From: jloucks@uts.amdahl.com (Jim Loucks)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Geologic column (was: "Re: Darwin's Enigma")
Date: 16 Apr 92 18:29:04 GMT
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

alc@netcom.com (Chris Stassen) writes:
>I wrote:
>> If they were creationists, maybe they believed in some sort of
>> theistic evolution, that God occasionally created more complex
>> organisms as time progressed. 

>That's a pretty creative guess; certainly better than I would have
>come up with in a similar position.  But it's not correct.  Remember,
>I said that this was before the geological community took evolution
>seriously (divinely guided or not!).

>Perhaps you were thinking of "progressive creationism" when you made
>your reply,

Forgive me for assuming, I thought theistic evolutionism and
progressive creationism were synonymous?

>The question I wanted to ask you is not *whether* these formations
>represented different times.  Rather, it is *how* the fossil contents
>are to be explained under the assumption that they are *not* from
>different times. 

That's a good question, difficult also. I'll work on a response,
remind me if I don't get back to you.

>[By the way, I will get into the sorts of checks against the ordering
> of the geologic column this weekend.  I deleted that point out of the
> middle of this response because I didn't have time to get to it tonight.]

Having reached the end of the article I was beginning to wonder what
happened, no need to rush though. 

-- 
Jim Loucks           jloucks@uts.amdahl.com 
{apple, pyramid, sun, uunet}!amdahl!jloucks
From: lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: 24 Karat Fundamentalism
Date: 8 Apr 92 16:13:25 GMT
Organization: City University, London

In article <1992Apr3.172334.26223@hemlock.cray.com> robd@cray.com
(Robert Derrick) writes:
>Yes, a missing leg miraculously restored would shake the foundations 
>of knowledge as we know it.

Why?

>However, a story of an eyewitless account
>of such an incident is good birdcage liner.

I suppose a witless account would not be much use!
What if you saw it yourself though?

>rob derrick

Lionel
--
Lionel Tun   (lionel@cs.city.ac.uk)
Vision Group, City University, London, EC1V 0HB. 071-477 8000 x 3889
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Is it my imagination, or . . .
From: sbishop@desire.wright.edu
Date: 6 Apr 92 06:29:44 EST
 <1992Apr5.091255.785@desire.wright.edu> <1992Apr5.221108.1600@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>
Organization: Wright State University 

In article <1992Apr5.221108.1600@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>, amorgan@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Crunchy Frog) writes:
> In article <1992Apr5.091255.785@desire.wright.edu> 
>   sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
>>In article <0jmj2vg@lynx.unm.edu>, 
>>  rsquires@cyclops.eece.unm.edu (Roger Squires) writes:
>>> In article <1992Apr4.163957.776@desire.wright.edu> 
>>>  sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
>>>>
>>>>I also have been given the extreme unction of being insulted for my weight..
>>>>Gotta get back to stuffing the Sarah Lee down the old throat.
>>>>
>>>>Sue
>>> 
>>> Hmmm...should we classify you as a Megaomnivore? :)
>>>                                                  ^^
>>>                                             Note!^^ the Smileys :)
>>> Roger Squires
>>> rsquires@cyclops.eece.unm.edu
>>
>>Yeah!  That's it!  Wow, my *own* classification..... I'm honored...
> 
> But are you a different *kind*?
> 
>>Sue
> 
> C "Homo amphibius" Frog

Ummmm.... Since 'kind' is a creationist description, then I guess I won't
be able to answer that.  Perhaps one of the creation supporters in the
group can help?

Sue
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: knightb@palmerc@abulafia.b21.ingr.com (William B. Knight)
Subject: Re: A man shall be judged by the company he keeps
Organization: Intergraph
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 19:32:20 GMT

In article <1992Apr6.235255.29610@rhrk.uni-kl.de> kring@efes.physik.uni-kl.de (Thomas Kettenring) writes:
>In article <2714@fedfil.UUCP>, news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
<deletions>
>The holocaust is a well documented fact, and if holocaust
>revisionists have no better arguments than these (which is very 
>likely) it will remain well documented fact.
>I can understand anybody who doesn't get the color right after
>seeing huge piles of dead bodies, and Winston's "evidence" is
>*NOT* convincing.  Any chemist who examines the gas chambers
>*without* the intent of finding no evidence for the holocaust
>will probably find evidence for it.
>
>Those 1500 BC sources, on the other side, are far from being well
>documented, so one has to rely on hard science only, with occasional
>looks at the myths.  Looking at myths as if they were facts is
>sometimes helpful (Schliemann) but doesn't work all the time.
>
>Sorry, your parallel was not only tasteless but also totally
>off the mark.

Note:  I am not trying to support any conclusion of Ted's.  

Having said this, let me ask:

Will the holocaust still be a well-documented fact 2000 years
from now?

brad
-- 
Brad Knight 
knightb@abulafia.b21.ingr.com

Xref: sparky talk.origins:4237 talk.religion.misc:6727
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.origins,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Does theory of evolution affect belief in God?
Date: 11 Apr 92 02:08:49 GMT
Organization: MacDTS Mongols

In article <1992Mar30.151720.5719@city.cs>, lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun)
writes:
> 
> In article <1992Mar26.230621.6904@imagen.com> isaak@imagen.com
> (mark isaak) writes:
> >How about you, Mr. Tun?  How would you answer your own question?  My
> >impression is that you feel that proving evolution would disprove your
> >God.  Is this accurate?
> 
> If evolution were proven I would just be very suprised. It could not
> shake my relationship with God. I would make a public apology to top
> evolutionists that I had maligned. I would examine my own standards
> of science. As for God, I would ask Him how and why I went wrong,
> and repent for leading people astray....

Please take a biology course at the nearest uni so your eyes could 
be opened. I think even God would like you to do this.

Cheers,
Kent
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: lamoran@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (L.A. Moran)
Subject: Isaac Asimov and the 2nd Law
Organization: UTCS Public Access
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 12:31:15 GMT


We will all remember Isaac Asimov in our own way. My tribute will consist
of posting the following words of wit and wisdom,

     "In kindergarten terms the second law of thermodynamics says
      that all spontaneous change is in the direction of increasing
      disorder - that is, in a 'downhill' direction. There can be no
      spontaneous buildup of the complex from the simple, therefore,
      because that would be moving 'uphill'. According to the
      creationist argument, since, by the evolutionary process,
      complex forms of life evolve from simple forms, that process
      defies the second law, so creationism must be true.
     
      Such an argument implies that this clearly visible fallacy is
      somehow invisible to scientists, who must therefore be flying
      in the face of the second law through sheer perversity.
 
      Scientists, however, do know about the second law and they are
      not blind. It's just that an argument based on kindergarten
      terms is suitable only for kindergartens."

                           Isaac Asimov
                            1920-1992
From: shafto@ils.nwu.edu (Eric Shafto)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Life without God?
Date: 16 Apr 92 18:39:28 GMT
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences

lief@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Lief Sorensen) writes:
> Anyway, on page 96 Mr. Futuyma made a claim that I want no one to forget --
> especially Mr. Futuyma.
> 
>    "The next step in the synthesis of life will be to develop RNA sequences
>    that can produce their own replicating enzymes.  This hasn't been done yet,
>    but biochemists have made such great progress in this direction that it's
>    likely that simple forms of life will be synthesized in the laboratory
>    within the next ten years."


Hell, I'm in AI.  By our standards, Futuyma's doing extremely well :-)


-- 
*Eric Shafto             * The longer I live the more I see I am never    *
*Institute for the       * wrong about anything, and that all the pains I *
*    Learning Sciences   * have so humbly taken to verify my notions have *
*Northwestern University * only wasted my time.          --G. B. Shaw     *
From: jloucks@uts.amdahl.com (Jim Loucks)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Jim hits a new low.
Date: 14 Apr 92 21:11:06 GMT
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock) writes:
>You are beyond belief, you jerk.  Adio!

Later Dan, much later. 

-- 
Jim Loucks           jloucks@uts.amdahl.com 
{apple, pyramid, sun, uunet}!amdahl!jloucks
From: jloucks@uts.amdahl.com (Jim Loucks)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Darwin's Enigma
Date: 15 Apr 92 19:37:04 GMT
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

References to "you" are general, and not directed at anyone in
particular.

lindsay+@cs.cmu.edu (Donald Lindsay) writes:
>I can't argue against a generalization. Please name a dishonest
>scientist. You might start with the dishonest scientists who falsify
>all those datings, for example. Who are they? Or was the tele-
>Creationist I saw last night lying?

Any scientist who makes a statement, then denies making that 
statement is dishonest. I've given you information that you
can look up for yourself that some scientists are not honest, along
with their names. Some of these scientists have claimed they were
misquoted. Well, the original verbatim typed transcripts from tape
support Sunderland's claims. You (talk.origins) can believe that 
Sunderland edited the transcripts if you like, you can even believe 
that he edited the original tape. But don't blame anyone but yourself 
when it hits the fan.

>I've asked for names before. I never get them. It does not reflect
>well on you that you insinuate, then don't deliver.

I can repost my article giving the names of those on the transcipts 
if you wish.

>>...proponents of punctuated equilibria. The latter of which I 
>>fail to see the difference between Goldschmidt's hopeful monster
>>concept and evidence for creation. How can a theory be falsified
>>if it is so generalized that it can explain any conceivable type
>>of evidence?  What good is it to science if it's not falsifiable?

>Punctuated-equilibrium is only a small variation on the current
>theory. Its falsifiability (or lack thereof) doesn't change the 
>falsifiability of the overall theory. Which is in fine shape.
>If you don't agree, you might be more specific.

What I meant was, if evolution is a scientific theory, then it must
be falsifiable from what I've read in talk.origins and elsewhere. 
So, how can the fossil record be disproved if whatever happened can
be explained via the fossil record. This sounds rather tautologous.

Punctuated equilbria is evidence supporting a lack of transitional
fossils, exactly what creationism predicts. I've asked before, what
determines the difference in the physical evidence, such as the 
fossil record, for punctuated equilibria and creationism?

-- 
Jim Loucks           jloucks@uts.amdahl.com 
{apple, pyramid, sun, uunet}!amdahl!jloucks
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Buttercup mammoth
From: sbishop@desire.wright.edu
Date: 6 Apr 92 18:10:58 EST
Organization: Wright State University 

In article <1992Apr6.085947@IASTATE.EDU>, danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock) writes:
> In article <#ddHtqzh6@cs.psu.edu>, kiledal@lisp.cs.psu.edu (Erik Kiledal)
> writes:
>> A wonderful example of the rash conclusions made about the cold-adaptation
>> that for some reason (it fits the model?) have gotten stuck. As I have 
>> written in a number of postings, careful examinations of the mammoths have
>> revealed that they were not able to withstand cold conditions. I still 
>                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> have not seen anybody disprove this. 
>> 
>> -Erik
> 
>    Ooops!  What you have shown is that many of the physical characteristics
> put forth as cold adaptation are shared by tropical cousins of the mammoth
> and by tropical animals.  This is _not_ equivalent to showing the mammoth 
> couldn't withstand cold conditions.  In fact if the mammoth were a recent
> immigrant or if the climate had changed one would expect poor adaptation
> and characteristics like those in the warmer weather versions.
> 
>    In fact the proposed method of demise for this now extinct spiecies 
> offered in a reference from Sue Bishop is that it dies of cold and lack of 
> fodder.  This is consistent with the mammoth being somewht maladapted to
> cold weather, no?
> 

Actually I think the post that you are referring to, states changes in 
climate and lack of food.  By changes in climate I really wasn't referring
to differences in warmth versus cold (sorry if I didn't make myself clear)
but rather a difference in aridity which altered the vegetation.  I'm
trying to find time to post the rest of my info on this topic.

Just gotta fight for computer time around this house, with a son who
likes to play computer games and a husband working on his ABS, I have
to try to sandwich in my one time.


>    Again: did the matrix indicate anything about the climate?
> 
> Dan
> Danwell@IASTATE.EDU
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Subject: Re: largest and oldest organism found?
Keywords: In this weeks Nature, researchers report finding a single
Reply-To: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 21:04:23 GMT

In article <83423@bu.edu>, news@bu.edu (News Administrator) writes:
> 1500 years old. The fungus was found in a hardwood forest in
> northern Michigan. 
> 	
> 	That's a big fungus.

   Since this fungus was the largest found _in the first survey_ _of a limited
area_ I bet it won't seem so big in 20 years.  If growth rates are fairly
uniform for mycobehemothic entities we might in fact get a nice new yardstick
to beat on the creationists with.  Mycochronology?
                                                        :-)

> Chris Colby

Dan
Danwell@IASTATE.EDU
PS: 38 acres and 100 tons, right?  Bigger than a Blue Whale but not as dense.


Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: robd@cray.com (Robert Derrick)
Subject: Re: Human lifespan - update
Date: 8 Apr 92 15:07:16 CDT

L.T. says:
    [ in response to Mickey Rowe cogent analysis of life expectancy, where
      instead of the idle handwaving I provided (siting common sense), Mr.
      Rowe provides evidence - and bravo for him ]

: So are you saying that the information given in Genesis 6:3, that the
: upper limit is 120 years rather than say 110 or 130, is correct?

If I may answer, yes, the information in Genesis is essentially correct.

"Well,", you might smugly reply, "what are the odds they could have guessed
that?"

Well, I reply, if they were dumber than dirt, I'd say no worse than, say
80 to 1.  A long shot, yeah, but race tracks have paid better.  Not exactly
a hat trick.  But if they were about average intelligence (and most of them
would be, now wouldn't they?), they would notice that 120 seems to be about
the oldest that anybody they know, or anybody that anybody they know has
ever known, or... [the rest is left as an exercise for the reader].  In
other words, something very like scientific observation.  I will go one
further, and say that the writers of Genesis would probably make better
scientists than any SC poster on T.O. [the last is only my opinion]

rob derrick