HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Some questions for Laura. Please read it.
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 13:40:39 GMT
 <1992Aug11.012115.5140@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> 
 <1992Aug11.150440.27507@cs.joensuu.fi> <1992Aug11.165838.15980@tcom.stc.co.uk> <1992Aug12.134805.9614@cs.joensuu.fi>
Organization: SPSS Inc.

asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:

>bruce@tcom.stc.co.uk (Bruce Munro) writes:

>>In article <1992Aug11.150440.27507@cs.joensuu.fi> asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
>>>lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard) writes:
>>>>But how did the oceans manage to stay on land for 40 days? Water lifted
>>>>1/2 mile above sea level will want to get back quickly.
>>>
>>>	Yes, but the mountains weren't so high. 

>>Where in the Bible does it state that the mountains weren't so high? How
>>could they have grown so much taller in such a short time?

>	I give you two hints:                 

>			1. Water

>			1a Water in the flood

Huh?  Last I checked, water (along with wind) was a major cause of erosion
and weathering, which causes mountains to be LOWER!  The older a mountain,
the more rounded and low it is.

Plate tectonics (and other geological events such as volcanos) are
responsible for high mountains, which are then subject to the effects of
weathering and erosion.

Water does the opposite of what you appear to claim, at least in my limited
knowledge of geology/weathering/geography.

 -Steve
--
 The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                        -------------------
     adams@spss.com                           Phone: (312) 329-3522
     Steve Adams                              Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:14410 sci.physics:13234 sci.chem:3122
From: doherty@msc.edu (David C. Doherty)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,sci.physics,sci.chem
Subject: Re: Entropy of the Universe, (was Re: Genesis - fact or fiction)
Date: 21 Aug 92 15:57:52 GMT
Reply-To: doherty@msc.edu
Organization: Minnesota Supercomputer Center


 >>serafin@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Mike Serafin) writes:
 >>I, being a scientist, once believed that evolution had all the answers.  But,
 >>evolution presents some gross inconsistencies with modern scientific laws. 
 >>Evolution requires that all matter somehow came together to form life.  The 
 >>law of entropy states that all systems will tend toward a state of maximum 
 >>entropy (maximum disorganization).  If this law is valid, then how, without
 >>some outside force, did matter come together to form life?

Ok, this one always bothers me most when I hear someone spouting creationist
pablum.

If you are a good scientist, you know that you should never half-state a "Law."

More precisely, the Second Law states that for an *isolated* thermodynamic 
system, any natural process will result in increased entropy in that system.

Now, go stand in the sun for a few minutes.  While you're there, ponder
what it means  for the earth to be a "thermodynamically isolated system."

David C. Doherty
Minnesota Supercomputer Center, Inc.
doherty@msc.edu

I said it.  Not only that, it's wrong.
From: jeon@milton.u.washington.edu (Sangyong Jeon)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Some questions for Laura. Please read it.
Date: 13 Aug 92 20:58:24 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

In article <65914@hydra.gatech.EDU> rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard
Pitts) writes: 
>
>Not bad - we (Christians) are a priesthood of believers, I'd hesitate
>to say we are prophets.  However, one must recall that the Holy Spirit
>is here to teach and guide us in all things.
>
>  John 14:26   But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father
>      will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind
>      you of everything I have said to you.
>


  Mark 10:21 Jesus looked at him and loved him. "One thing you lack,"
             he said. "Go sell 

             everything 

             you have and give to the poor,
             and you will have treasure in heaven. 

             Then 

             come, follow me."


>Sincerely,
>Richard Pitts


Jeon
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Subject: Polytheism  (?)
Reply-To: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Organization: St. Elizabeth Hospital, Youngstown, OH
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 08:31:59 GMT


Isn't polytheism the belief that your parrot is god?

:-)

-- 
*...your Friendly Neighborhood Atheist // "Peter...PETER!!  I can see    *
*      the KelleyMan:Kelley L. Miller // your house from here!"          *    
*                  ae642@yfn.ysu.edu // Jesus Christ, from the cross     *
****************Know God...No peace.  No God...Know peace.****************
From: young@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (young.u.huh)
Subject: Jesus & the Sin of the World
Organization: AT&T
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 21:34:15 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism


It is often said by Christians that, Jesus, also referred 
to as the Son of Man or the Son of God, died to forgive
the sin of the world.  According to Christianity, were 
ALL sins forgiven at the time of his death?  Specifically:

1. Does this include all human beings who lived before, 
   during, or after the time Jesus died?

2. Does this include all sin that was committed before, 
   during, or after the time Jesus died?

If either of the answers to questions 1 and 2 above is No,
then what are the criteria for some sins of some people 
being forgiven and not the others?

If both answers are Yes, then does it follow that an 
atheist is already forgiven for the "sin" of not believing
in God?

Please post your replies.

Young Huh
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,sci.physics,sci.chem
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Entropy of the Universe, (was Re: Genesis - fact or fiction)
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 20:42:09 GMT

In article <VSUMMERS.92Aug21155605@polaris.cv.nrao.edu> vsummers@polaris.cv.nrao.edu (Vince Summers) writes:
>     Have you ever mixed chemicals up in a flask and gotten one molecule of
>protein, let alone DNA?

I am not a biologist or chemist.  Biologists/chemists have indeed done this.

>If other forms of life evolved into more complex life
>forms, why aren't ANY of the simple ones still around?

They are.  Where have you looked?

>What forms of life
>have no DNA in them?

Certain viruses, and prions.  Why do you ask?
--
I am of course experienced in teaching and have read the writings of Socrates.
    -- Ed Nilges

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,talk.origins
From: davem@county.lmt.mn.org (David Mackmiller)
Subject: Re: Some questions for Laura. Please read it.
Organization: LaserMaster R&D, Minneapolis, MN  USA
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 18:22:07 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.205825.16152@news.nd.edu> scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu (Scharle) writes:
>From: scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu (Scharle)
>Subject: Re: Some questions for Laura. Please read it.
>Date: 12 Aug 92 20:58:25 GMT

>In article <2447@tredysvr.Tredydev.Unisys.COM>, tom@tredysvr.Tredydev.Unisys.COM (Tom Albrecht) writes:
>    Interesting.  Let's see -- how long can an earthworm survive 
>under water? -- why don't you show us how most invertebrates, including
>earthworms, could survive the Flood? 
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Well, maybe 4700 years ago earthworms were really good swimmers and since 
the number of global floods since then has been pretty close to zero, those 
good swimmers have died out through natural selection.  

Look in any textbook.  ;-)

Just kidding.  Anyway, I've been watching this thread with interest lately, 
because I was brought up as a JW.  I was DF'ed (disfellowshipped to you 
'worldly' types) in 1976 when I was 18.  Seems the JW's were positive that 
the world was going to end in 1975, although they never admitted it in 
print.  Well, that wasn't the reason why I left.  I lost faith in their 
belief that they were the chosen few and that god would wipe out all the non-
JWs, regardless of the sincerity of their beliefs.  That seemed like a 
really petty reason to wipe out a planet.

The reason I wanted to jump in here was to say: save your bandwidth.  The 
JWs love to argue, but the only references they believe are published by the 
Watchtower Society.  Anything else is 'worldly', and probably from satan.  I 
know, I used to be in the same boat.

Reminds me of a .sig that a guy on rec.gambling used to have, "Never try to 
teach a pig to sing.  It wastes your time and annoys the pig."

DaveMac

Speaking of sigs, heres one Laura can add to hers- "oops : spoo"  :-)

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: guth@unixg.ubc.ca (Geoff Guth)
Subject: Re: Entropy of the Universe, (was Re: Genesis - fact or fiction)
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 03:18:54 GMT

In article <VSUMMERS.92Aug21155605@polaris.cv.nrao.edu> vsummers@polaris.cv.nrao.edu (Vince Summers) writes:
>     Have you ever mixed chemicals up in a flask and gotten one molecule of
>protein, let alone DNA?  If other forms of life evolved into more complex life
>forms, why aren't ANY of the simple ones still around?  What forms of life
>have no DNA in them?  Can you shake a flask of proteins and get DNA?
>     Evolutionism is no more a science than magic.

I believe I saw a program on "NOVA" a few years back where proteins had
been synthesized from simple compounds believed to be present during the
early years of the Earth, with the energy being provided by an electric
discharge (ie "lightning")  Does anyone have any more details on this,
was such a study actually published?
>
>Vince Summers
>vsummers@polaris.cv.nrao.edu

Geoff.


-- 

|Geoff Guth                          |Si hoc signum legere potes, operis boni |
|Richard Britnell de Salisbury (sca) |     in rebus latinis alacribus et      |
|guth@unixg.ubc.ca                   |        fructuosis potiri potes!        |
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:13873 talk.origins:9436
From: tom@tredysvr.Tredydev.Unisys.COM (Tom Albrecht)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Some questions for Laura. Please read it.
Date: 12 Aug 92 16:59:14 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Unisys, Applied Technology, Malvern, PA

[I'm going to hate myself for perpetuating this cross-posted thread,
but here goes anyway.]

In article <1992Aug12.130908.7094@news.nd.edu> scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu (Scharle) writes:
>    Welcome talk.religion.misc'ers to talk.origins 
>
>    Isn't it a coincidence?  Here we were talking about the species
>with many (>>2) sexes and other such things, while our friends over
>in talk.religion.misc were talking about parthenogenic species.

Regarding the matter of parthenogenic species and the flood, none of the
examples you cited (with the possible exception of your lizard, if it
exists) would qualify as an ark passenger, according to the biblical
account.  Certainly an earthworm would not qualify under the guidelines
given by God to Noah, it not having "the breath of life."  Most invertebrates
and lower life forms could survive a (relatively) short global flood without
the protection of the ark.

Now, if you can come up with a parthenogenic cow or horse, then maybe you
would be onto something.

-- 
Tom Albrecht
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley)
Subject: Re: god and empiricism
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 06:40:33 GMT

rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:

>In article <sbuckley.713178249@sfu.ca> sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley) writes:
>>Eric Rescorla writes:
>>
>>>Stephen Buckley writes:
>>>>
>>>>  this is where we disagree.  the truth of not only christianity, but of
>>>>the entire spiritual world is dependent on more than empiricism.  i don't
>>>>expect you will acknowledge the existence of an empirically-unverifiable
>>>>spiritual world as long as you hold empiricism as the limit of your means
>>>>to explore it.
>>
>>>Mr. Buckley. You are claiming that an entity exists. In what way do
>>>you propose to demonstrate that it exists if not by empirical methods?
>>
>>  i can't.  god would be bound by logic if logic could prove him.  god
>>is beyond logic.  to keep from sounding like a cosmic muffin tho, i will
>>say that there are a lot of good reasons to consider his existence: the
>>bible, our imperfect nature, a desire to be closer to the creator, etc.
>>none of these reasons tho, is anybody obligated to hold.  we're all 
>>allowed to disbelieve in god.  free will.  but i can give you personal
>>testimony to my relationship with god in jesus, but empirically you can
>>undermine all of what i would say if you wanted to.  basically i think
>>it comes down to whether you think you need to look for god and delve into
>>the realm of faith.
>The Great Pumpkin would be bound by logic if logic could prove him.
>The Great Pumpkin is beyond logic. To keep from sounding like
>a cosmic muffin tho, i will say that there are a lot of good reasons
>to consider his existence: the peanuts cartoons, our imperfect nature,
>a desire to be closer to the creator, etc.

>You can write this precise same passage substituting any one of twenty
>gods for "God"

  yeah, this road was travelled down a few weeks ago with santa instead
of the great pumpkin.  without rehashing it all, i'll state my final
conclusion which is that god is not a hypothetical abstract thing that
has no bearing on individual lives.  if he were, it would be a pretty
pathetic creation.  the value of a philosophy/spirituality is derived by
its successful workings in the actual lives of people [and i can give
long testimony to the life of jesus in me].  what separates a hypothetical
from reality is whether there is a great pumpkin as bearer of a covenant
between god and humanity.  show me one and i'll realistically consider
it as i do jesus, but until then it's all a somantic/mind game with words
that do not really affect any of our lives.
---                          
     Stephen Buckley        /    the meaning of life is the answer
     sbuckley@sfu.ca       /      to God's question in the Bible:
   TrueNorthStrong&Free   /        
      1-800-REALITY      /    "What are you going to do with my Son?"                   
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: wcsa@cbnews.cb.att.com (willard.smith)
Subject: Re: LDS: Nibley, genius or fool?
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 15:52:11 GMT
Summary: Thousands and thousands and thousands and thousands of Pages


In article <1992Aug10.235518.22113@javelin.sim.es.com> Glenn Clapp wrote:

|OK, ball's in your court.  You tell me what I have read?  You seem
|to know.  I am amazed that if I find fault in so called LDS appologetics,
|then I have never read any.  How do you sopose I have found fault.
|IT IS BY READING THOUSANDS OF PAGES!!!  Heck, last monday, I spent
|hours in deseret book reading two books just standing there in the
|stacks.  They were perfect examples of what I am talking about.
|(Neigher by the way, was a Nibley).

Well Glenn, all I can say is that I am not impressed. If you've read just
the first five volumes of Nibley's collected works then you have already
read thousands of pages. I go through a thousand pages of material in a
single month. Of those pages, I admit that not all are reviewed throughly
but I do feel that approximately one third of that is covered closely.

I have seen many people stand in Deseret Book Stores and zip through books.
Heck, I was guilty of the same thing, but I would never try to claim that
I understood all that I zipped through, nor would I claim that I "read" the
books.

I also have to point out Glenn, that from previous e-mail discussions, you
have indicated that some things you have read, apparently have not been well
read or even well understood. Specifically you once tried to argue that
a person by the name of Jim Peterson had argued IN FAVOR of Free Will by
refering to a book, "Living Proof." I pointed out that basic Protestant
theology made a distinction between FREE WILL and OUR WILL and that Mr
Peterson's views would have been in the minority. You then told me how
after a discussion with a friend, who had a better understanding of
Protestant theology, you reexamined Mr Peterson's book and discovered that
you had misunderstood him. Nothing to be ashamed of, most individuals
(including myself) are guilty of the same error. 

Why do you think that I don't accept the arguments of Anti-Mormon literature?
It is because I have spent hundreds of hours reading thousands of pages of
such material over the last fifteen years, and I am not impressed! Heck, last
week, I spent a couple of hours looking at some Decker and Tanner material
(in detail) and cross referencing it to other published apologetical works.
Big Deal.
-- 

              Willard C. Smith
  Oh God, Make my Words Palatable and Sweet, | att!cbnews!iwtgo!wcsa
   Because I Might have to Eat all of Them.  | wcsa@iwtgo.att.com
From: markwc@barney.esl.com (Mark Christiansen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Testing...
Date: 20 Aug 92 07:57:53 GMT
Organization: ESL Inc., Sunnyvale, CA


-- 
Good-day!

Mark
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: Genesis - fact or fiction
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 22:05:15 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.150122.4635@spdc.ti.com>, serafin@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Mike
Serafin) writes:
> I, being a scientist, once believed that evolution had all the answers.  But,
> evolution presents some gross inconsistencies with modern scientific laws. 
> Evolution requires that all matter somehow came together to form life.  The 
> law of entropy states that all systems will tend toward a state of maximum 
> entropy (maximum disorganization).  If this law is valid, then how, without
> some outside force, did matter come together to form life?

  What are you a scientist in?

  Regardless, you have made some major errors with the meaning of entropy:

  1) The 2nd law applies only to closed systems, the earth is not closed.

  2) Entropy is NOT disorganization.  There isn't even any scientific meaning to
organization and disorganization.  If I asked for a random ordering of the
numbers between 1 and 10, would 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 fit the bill?  Well, our
minds say no, but of course this order is just as likely as any other order if
they are chosen at random.
     Entropy merely represents a trend towards "uniformity".  If we stir some
coffee grounds into a cup of sugar, we expect them to become mixed.  There is no
reason, however, that the grounds could not clump together by stirring.  It is
unlikely, but if we stir thousands of cups, some clumping will occur in some of
them.

  3) While the overall entropy of the system must increase, localized pockets
can decrease in entropy.  If this didn't happen we wouldn't have snowflakes, we
couldn't charge our car batteries, and our bodies themselves would cease to
function.

  I hope this clarifies it somewhat.

 |  __L__   *******************************
-|-  ___    * Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub   *
 |  | o |   * kv07@iastate.edu            *
 |/ `---'   * Iowa State University       *
/|   ___    * Math Department             *
 |  |___|   * 400 Carver Hall             *
 |  |___|   * Ames, IA  50011             *
 J  _____   *******************************
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:14460 sci.physics:13282 sci.chem:3138
From: sichase@csa3.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,sci.physics,sci.chem
Subject: Re: Entropy of the Universe, (was Re: Genesis - fact or fiction)
Date: 21 Aug 92 22:57:58 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
Distribution: na
Reply-To: sichase@csa3.lbl.gov
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.198
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   

In article <1992Aug21.212447.17947@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca>, mroussel@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Marc Roussel) writes...
> 
>     We should not refute one bogus argument with another.  Viruses do
>not self-replicate so they cannot be primitive organisms (i.e. they have
>to have arisen after the self-replicators).  The existence of viruses

This is a false conclusion.  The only fair conlusion is that if viruses
preexisted other self-replicators, that at some point they jettisoned their
own replicating mechanism in order to be more efficient replicators.   
They don't have to waste energy constructing reproductive apparatus.  All
available energy goes into making genetic information and a shell to stuff
it in.

-Scott
--------------------
Scott I. Chase			"The question seems to be of such a character
SICHASE@CSA2.LBL.GOV		that if I should come to life after my death
				and some mathematician were to tell me that it
				had been definitely settled, I think I would
				immediately drop dead again."      - Vandiver
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: jay@oclc.org (Young Jeff)
Subject: FTPable KJV?
Organization: OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc.
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 21:00:32 GMT

I have seen several people refer to an FTPable KJV.  Could someone
give me a pointer to the location so I can download one?  Thankx.
-- 
Jeff Young

Opinions expressed are mine alone.
From: pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Polytheism
Summary: And thus I chose the way of Follow Me and be Free!
Organization: But there shall be substantial penalties for early withdrawal ...
	<Bszn8I.LrJ@nntp-sc.Intel.COM> <66293@hydra.gatech.EDU>
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 22:08:02 GMT

In article <66293@hydra.gatech.EDU> 
rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
>Jesus said unless you repent (change) you will not see or enter the
>Kingdom of Heaven. 

Of course, this makes complete sense. Heaven, the Kingdom of the Lord, is
right here, right now, only most don't see IT for what IT is. Hell is not
seeing IT for what IT is. And so, unless YOU change or repent your ways, no,
you will not see IT. You will only see Hell. Joyful participation in the
sorrows of the world, this is Heaven, and also the meaning of rock.

>Repentance or changing one's ways, direction, or
>thought is common throughout the Bible, as one turns from false gods
>to the One True God.

Well, I don't think there is any reason to get hung up on the false god dogma.
Bottom line is someone created all those "false gods" and I know you know who
that is. Of course, one must interpret dogma for one's self, and one must 
reflect dogma into the reality of one's self, and to that end one does come to
know the One True God. One True God for the one, each and every one coming to 
find one's own One True God. This is just the way of the individual, the
authentic individual living an authentic life. But don't get hung up on the
One True God dogma, using One True God as your mantra will not get you there.
One True God is only metaphor. Of course there is only One True God, what
did you expect? The transcendent is transcendent, transcendent of things like
quantity and value judgement, transcendent of all that is what we call reality.

Did I tell you that reality used to be a friend of mine? She tried to house
me, but a house has doors. Ah reality, boy can she dance!

Now, Follow Me and be Free, thus spaketh Zarathustra's Ape.