HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Subject: Re: Ideology and Indoctrination
Reply-To: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Organization: Iowa State University
Distribution: world,local
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 16:38:14 GMT

In article <25JAN199322265351@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu>,
lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) writes:
> In article <1993Jan25.152051@IASTATE.EDU>, danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A
Ashlock) writes...
>>In article <1k0tpu$5mp@agate.berkeley.edu>, philjohn@garnet.berkeley.edu
>>(Phillip Johnson) writes:
>>> We also owe them to the
>>> assumption of the writers that the rulers of "science" are not
>>> accountable to the public for what they do.   Dr. Gallo and Dr.
>>> Baltimore made similar assumptions in believing that they were
>>> beyond accountability.
>> 
>>   That's just plain not true.  Baltimore has a subordinate who lied
>>and falsified data; he didn't believe she did it: at no time did he act
>>as if he was not accountable and he was in fact held accountable.  You've
>>aluded to Science magazine before.  The whole controversy was chronicled in
>>there.  Where on earth do you see evidence that Baltimore did not think he
>>was accountable?
> 
>I have to side with Johnson on this one.  Baltimore told Margot O'Toole,
>who had proved her case beyond all doubt, that anywhere she went with
>her story, he would go too, and he would be believed because he had a Nobel
>prize and she didn't.  For all the horrifying details of this case, see
>Robert Bell's _Impure Science_, which just came out last year.  _Science_
>also fell down on the job regarding this case, just as it did regarding
>Robert Sprague's attempt to blow the whistle on fraud by one of his former
>students.  I believe they sat on Walter Stewart's paper on the Thereza
>Imanishi-Kari/Baltimore case for a full three years before publishing it.
>It took Congressional hearings and a Secret Service investigation to get
>the case resolved. 

   I'm willing to conceede that Baltimore acted like a complete idiot but
I'm still of the opinion he knew he was accountable.  His error was 
excessive loyalty.  I'll bet dollars to donughts that Baltimore never looked
at the evidence against Imanishi-Kari (he sure acted like he didn't) and
was operating under the assumption that the evidence was fabricated; what
that lady did was stunningly dishonest and reprehensible; unbelievably so.

   This is a very fine point I'm putting on things though.  It's the 
difference between thinking you are not accountable and thinking there 
will never be a need to be held accountable.  Baltimore's arrogance lay 
in thinking that extremely damning evidence presented by a junior 
colleage must be false _not_ that damning evidence should be ignored.  He's
wrong either way - it's just that I've never encountered a scientist who thought
they were not accountable and I've met many who thought their conduct
was beyond question, even when it might not be.

Dan
Danwell@IASTATE.EDU
From: rlg@omni (Randy garrett)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Who is Christian - a simple answer
Date: 25 Jan 1993 17:46:25 GMT
Organization: IDA, Alexandria, VA
NNTP-Posting-Host: omni.ida.org
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

: 	What's the relevance to talk.origins?

I was just responding to an article that appeared within this
group.  Perhaps you are right and the original article and
all subsequent postings such as your own are inappropriate.

On the other hand, since Jesus claimed to be Creator, His
claims may be entirely relevant.

: 
: 	And why don't you argue this question with a real expert on
: divinity, our favorite Veda-thumper Kalki Dasa?

I don't know, why don't I?
From: Dr.Pepper@f241.n103.z1.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Ideology and Indoctrination
Date: 26 Jan 93 01:14:00 GMT
X-Sender: newtout 0.06 Jan  3 1993


 > From: philjohn@garnet.berkeley.edu (Phillip Johnson)
 > Message-ID: <1k0tpu$5mp@agate.berkeley.edu>

 > Chris Colby complains that Darwin on Trial reports that
 > biologists have been hiding things from the public.   Why not,
 > when leading figures have admitted as much on behalf of their
 > profession?  It is not I but Stephen Jay Gould who described the
 > prevalence of stasis and sudden appearance in the fossil record
 > as the "trade secret" of paleontology.  Stephen Stanley has
 > written that the doubts of paleontologists about the conformity
 > of the fossil record with Darwinist gradualism were for long
 > "suppressed."  Most revealing of all, Niles Eldredge confessed
 > in
 > print that "We paleontologists have said that the history of
 > life
 > supports [the story of gradual adaptive change], all the while
 > really knowing that it does not."  That is a smoking gun indeed.

Well i guess that does it for evolution. Now 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      |
| Hussein: We made him, we |             Westminster, Ca  92683   |
| broke him, we'll build   | Modem:      714-894-7039             |
| him up again if we want  | Fidonet:    1:103/241                |
| to, we're the US.        | Candynet:   42:1001/1                |
|                          | Internet:   Dr.Pepper@f241.n103.z1   |
|                          |              .fidonet.org            |
+--------------------------+--------------------------------------+

---
From: kring@efes.physik.uni-kl.de (Thomas Kettenring)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: uniformitarianism doesn't rule out catastrophes
Date: 27 Jan 1993 19:48:03 GMT
Organization: FB Physik, Universitaet Kaiserslautern, Germany
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: nz11.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de

In article <1993Jan21.125825.13667@news.nd.edu>, scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu (scharle) writes:
>    Isn't it true that certain laws of uniformitarianism, so to speak,
>are mathematically equivalent to corresponding conservation laws?
>For example, that the universe is the same over all locations in space 
>(isotopy?) is equivalent to the conservation of energy, or that 
                                                 momentum
>uniformity over time is equivalent to conservation of ...? [..]
                                                       energy

and uniformity over spacial directions is equivalent to the conservation of
angular momentum.

--
thomas kettenring, 3 dan, kaiserslautern, germany
  What E. von Daeniken, I. Velikovsky and several others could have said but to
  my knowledge didn't:
"I don't know much about science, but I know what I like!"
From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Voyagers on the Ark of Noah
Date: 29 Jan 93 04:26:43 GMT
Followup-To: talk.origins
Organization: The Language Game Inc.

In article <9157@news.duke.edu>, dgt@phy.duke.edu (Dinko Eduardo Gonzalez)
wrote:
>   Don't be so dense.  Just like the animals, they came to Noah.  God said to
> the plants "go to Noah" and they just uprooted themselves and marched their
> way to the ark.  Sheesh, it's so simple.  Oh, as for how they stayed alive
> in the ark, the answer is obvious -- God did it.

What about the difference in speed compared with various animals, let's
say lions and other fast moving animals got to the ark quickly, but turtles
and other even slower animals had to crawl, and crawl, and crawl? Unless
there was some kind of an organizational system where the slowest moving
animals started to crawl from let us say Tasmania, and they had about 20000
years headstart before the fast ones started.

Why does this sound silly?

Kent
---
sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND
Private activities on the Net, opinions are not Apple's, they are mine.
From: cust_ts@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Tero Sand)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Come on Mr. Johnson
Date: 24 Jan 93 15:06:04 GMT
Organization: University of Helsinki

In article <15kTXB3w165w@kalki33.lakes.trenton.sc.us> system@kalki33.lakes.trenton.sc.us (Kalki Dasa) writes:

Goddammit, Kalki, take a look in the mirror. It is _your_ posts that are
full of abuse and absolutely free of content.

As an exercise, please go over all replies to mr. Johnson (should 'mr'
be 'Mr'?) and show me which one was a flame.

	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
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: jbm@hal.trl.OZ.AU (Jacques Guy)
Subject: Kiwis on Noah's Ark
Organization: Telecom Research Labs, Melbourne, Australia
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 06:46:13 GMT


It is all very simple, and I owe this flash of revelation
to an Australian correspondent whose name alas I have
forgotten. He mentioned to me that, according to some
aboriginal legends, the platypus was the result of the
rape of a duck by a rat. So there you are. The Kiwi
is a cross of a midget with an emu. The emu itself
is the result of the rape of a dungheap by a pair
of stilts. The dungheap was produced by some of the animals
on the Ark, and the stilts were used by Noah and
family helpers to move about without sullying their
feet in all that manure. 

This explanation is utterly scientific. It explains
the maximum amount with the barest minimum. Just
two stilts and a heap of shit! Why, Ockham's razor
at its best.
From: lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Who does Phillip Johnson think the creationists are?
Date: 26 Jan 93 05:01:00 GMT
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1993Jan25.130636.1@woods.ulowell.edu>, cotera@woods.ulowell.edu writes...
>Creationism relies on the assumption that God exists and was insrumental in the
>origin of the universe and everything in it.  Evolution, on the other hand,
>relies on the assumption that He doesn't exist, or if He does, He doesn't
>interfere with the natural processes of the universe.  Neither of these

What in evolution relies on this assumption?  How does it rely on this
assumption in a way that physics or chemistry do not?

>There are, in fact, institutions dedicated to Creation Science Research.

Such as?  What have they produced in the last few years?

>> What is
>> the scientific evidence for creationist claims?  
> 
>The "Pre-Cambrian Explosion" is a term used to describe the sudden formation of
>life on Earth.  This suddenness supports Creationism.  The fossil record shows
>sudden "changes" in animals.  This supports Creationism.  There are thousands
>of cases where people have been miraculously healed of ailments (only after
>praying to God to be healed).  This supports the theory that God exists, and
>therefore, Creationism.

How, exactly, do miraculous healings support creationism?
How many of these "thousands of cases" are documented with both
before and after evidence collected by professional medical personnel
and do not involve diseases which are subject to spontaneous remission?
Where can this documentation be found?  (And, why do people who make
these claims refuse to bring forth documentation?)

>Naturalistic explanations are all well and good if there is no God.  I have yet
>to see His existence disproven.  Thus naturalistic explanations are, for the
>time being, inadequate.

Do you think that this holds for all naturalistic explanations whatsoever?
Is it necessary to appeal to God, for example, to explain how your
computer is displaying my words to you?

Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Ideology and Indoctrination
From: kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu
Date: 25 Jan 93 12:05:22 EST
Organization: Wesleyan University

In article <1k0tpu$5mp@agate.berkeley.edu>, philjohn@garnet.berkeley.edu (Phillip Johnson) writes:
> 
> [main article deleted]
>  
> Darwinist indoctrination makes its victims incapable of
> understanding that the fundamental problem of biological
> evolution, or creation,
> [blah blah blah]
> 
> I recognize that this frank talk will cause offense.  My purpose
> is not to insult anyone, however, but to free minds.  Many of you
> have been indoctrinated not to question assumptions that are
> based on ideology rather than evidence.  You can be free of that
> indoctrination if you wish to be.

   You were doing all right until you got down to these last two
paragraphs.  I don't take offense at what you said in the rest of the
article, although I think it's wrong, but in your final conclusions
above.  Your assumption that all who support Darwinism are indoctrinated
robots and your condescending, I'm-right-and-you're-wrong attitude is 
highly insulting to my intelligence and that of the others on the net.

   BTW, posting occasional long articles is *not* discussion.  If you 
wish to discuss these matters you will have to respond to followups
instead of remaining in your ivory tower complaining that your opinion
is suppressed. 

Karl
   
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| "Lastly, I come to China in the hope      | "All you touch and all you see  |
| of fulfilling a lifelong ambition -       | Is all your life will ever be." |
| dropping acid on the Great Wall."  --Duke |                 --Pink Floyd    |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|         A Lie is still a Lie even if 3.8 billion people believe it.         |
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: They want to debate Phillip Johnson
Date: 25 Jan 1993 03:10:17 GMT
Organization: sgi
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <qXiuXB1w165w@kalki33.lakes.trenton.sc.us>, system@kalki33.lakes.trenton.sc.us (Kalki Dasa) writes:
|> 
|> An open letter to Dr. Phillip Johnson:
|> 
|> philjohn@garnet.berkeley.edu (Phillip Johnson) writes:
|> 
|> > I am not sure that it is possible to hold a discussion in this
|> > group, because the majority of participants seem to consider the
|> > neo-Darwinian theory to be so obviously true that doubt is not
|> > taken seriously.  
|> 
|> It is true that most of the participants in this newsgroup take some 
|> form of Darwinism as absolute fact. Furthermore, most of them 
|> believe that it has been "proven scientifically" and therefore doubt is
|> not to be taken seriously.

As someone who has said several times in the past, and indeed again
just the other day, that this kind of proof beyond any doubt simply 
isn't attainable, I'd like to dissociate myself from this statement.

I have always said, and I believe that at one time or another I've
seen most of the posteres here say, that evolutionary theories are
not statements about philosophical "truth" but are models that fit
or don't fit the data.   That being so, they are *always* open to
new data, doubt and debate.

I have a question, though.   How does Kalki Dasa know in such detail
what people think?

jon.
From: apodaca@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Mu'tafikah)
Subject: pathetic ignorance
Summary: request for reading material
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1993 00:18:14 GMT

Hi.

I am very interested in the evolution vs. creation debate and
would appreciate some help from all you experts. I would like
to make informed arguments when discussing these subjects, but
I don't know where to start researching. What are the best
books/articles/magazines I can read to get a respectable
knowledge of this subject? 

If this is on the FAQ please mail it to me.

thanks

tomas.
-- 

____ . . apodaca@ucsu.Colorado.EDU . . ____
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: The Uranus Myth
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 00:32:35 GMT

  So, many of you are now wondering: how was the Earth orbiting Uranus? How did
this reduce the "felt effect of gravity"? and What the hell is he talking
about?

  Well the answer to all these is simple once you recognize one simple _fact_:
Uranus is a superconductor.

  That's right, it's unique interior configuration has turned it into a giant
superconductor.  This means that when the Earth orbited Uranus the Earths
magnetic field entered the primaries surface, and was carried allong without
resistance.  This generated a repulsive force on the Earth.  Surely you have
seen those scientific demonstrations where the magnet floats eerily above a
supercoductor, this is much what happened with the Earth.

  The Earth still orbited Uranus, but because of the magnetic repulsive force
from Uranus, it did not need to orbit as quickly as the distance would have
required.  This means that the Earth was _not_ in gravitational free fall!

  Since one side (not the pole) was always facing Uranus, all of the sauropods
etc. were living on the pangaea supercontinent that sat on that face.

  Uranus would heat the planet facing side of the Earth, but what about the far
side?  Wouldn't that side freeze over?

  No!  Remember, Uranus was generating a repulsive force on the Earth's magnetic
core.  This means that the core was _closer_ to the surface on the far side of
the planet.  The mantel would have been dragged toward Uranus.  The constant
stresses put on the core would have kept it heated, but the extra-thick mantel
on the near side would protect the inhabitants from excessive volcanism.

  So there we have it, a complete, self consistant explanation for all the
_factual_ discrepancies between history and science.

--
Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub
HTE
From: cotera@woods.ulowell.edu
Subject: Re: Evolution implied by the Bible
Organization: University of Lowell
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 16:21:30 GMT

In article <72610d3d@ofa123.fidonet.org>, Dr.Pepper@f241.n103.z1.fidonet.org writes:
 
> Are you saying there *is* no theory? What is "Creation Science" then? It's a
> strange science that has no theory.
> 

I'm saying that I don't know how much of a theory they [CRS] have.  Apparently
it is not complete.

>  > However here is the Theory of Creationism in a nutshell: God
>  > created the universe.
> 
> Here is my rebuttle: No evidence.
> 

Do you see the irony of this statement? Every time a Creationist brings up the
gaps in the fossil record, Evolutionists say "Lack of evidence does not
contradict evolution." Now you're using the same argument against my theory.

Anyway, let me give you some evidence (although hardly proof): The first law of
thermodynamics says that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only
changed from one form to another.  The second law says that the amount of
entropy in the universe is decreasing.  This means that the amount of energy
that can be put to useful work is decreasing.  From this we get the idea of the
heat death of the universe.  Now if we go backwards in time we see that the
entropy of the universe is decreasing.  Eventually we get to a point where
there is no entropy.  So before that point either the laws of physics no longer
hold (no evidence of this), or God created the universe.
--Ray Cote
From: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: For-sale ads on sci.math??
Date: 24 Jan 93 16:07:28 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
Supersedes: <106353@netnews.upenn.edu>
In-reply-to: system@kalki33.lakes.trenton.sc.us (Kalki Dasa)

In article <8RJqXB7w165w@kalki33.lakes.trenton.sc.us>, system@kalki33 (Kalki Dasa) writes:
>> The upsurge of religious propaganda on USENET via your signature is also
>> very annoying, and USENET etiquette discourages all big signatures. 

>You know, Weiner, you haven't got any idea how fortunate you are.

I wouldn't be surprised, Kaka Doodoo.

>Reading my signature is the only good thing that ever happened to you in
>your entire miserable life, and you should get down on your knees and
>thank the God who made you for giving you this opportunity to at least
>see His holy name in print.

I don't read your signature.  My software suppresses it first.

As for God's name, you are seriously deluded, as any rabbi can tell you.

>Aside from that, I'm right about the book ads, and everybody knows it.

Really?  You obviously don't, considering how often you advertized.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: ccw@prefect.cc.bellcore.com (wood,christopher)
Subject: Re: Moon Dust
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 93 19:14:39 GMT

Newbie alert!  Newbie alert!

In article <1k1a58INN3d1@dmsoproto.ida.org> rlg@omni (Randy garrett) writes:

>One piece of evidence advanced for a young universe concerns
>the depth of dust on the moon.  [ trimmed ]
>Anyone know what the accepted reconcilation
>of the discrepancy is?

The depth of moon dust is an oft-repeated "concern" of creationists. 
This, and many other arguments offered by creationists, have been
refuted over and over again.  One of the esteemed "T.O Irregulars" has a
list of articles that answer Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs),
including the dreck spouted by creationist tracts.  Randy, you will fare
a lot better on this news group if you watch for the FAQ articles, read
them, and then discuss topics with this group.

Chris

-- 
Chris Wood     Bellcore     ...!bellcore!prefect!ccw
                         or ccw@prefect.cc.bellcore.com
From: swf@tools3teradata.com (Stan Friesen)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Ideology and Indoctrination
Date: 28 Jan 93 19:39:53 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <1993Jan25.152051@IASTATE.EDU>, danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock) writes:
|> 
|>    Agreed.  The government has abdicated it's responsability to finance basic
|> research and a lot of corrupting money is coming into science in the form of
|> corporate sposorship or research done by stockholding scientists.  It give more
|> motives to be dishonest.

Another unfortunate source of temptation is the 'publish or perish' method
of evaluating job performance used by many university administrators.
This leads, at the very least, to an excess of mediocre, or downright
shoddy, pieces being published to fill out the quota.  And it can easily
be the final straw that pushes someone into fabricating results to publish.

-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Moon Dust
Date: 26 Jan 93 00:48:02 GMT
Organization: sgi
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <1993Jan25.235631.4019@news.uiowa.edu>, cdminter@icaen.uiowa.edu (Corey D Minter) writes:
|> hyde@cs.dal.ca (Bill Hyde) writes:
|> 
|> >	Does this tell you something about
|> >	their honesty?
|> 
|> I think that is not it at all.  This phenomena may show that we are
|> talking about a group of people that is not interested in surveying
|> all the information that is out there.  They tend to put a lot of
|> effort in drudging up 'older' references only rather than doing
|> some real work and seeing what is out there and deciding for themselves.
|> 
|> So, I don't think it is a matter of honesty directly, though it comes
|> to that when their beliefs are exposed.  Then they might find it hard
|> to overcome the fact that they were wrong.  


I think you may both be wrong.   I think Creationists are more
like lawyers.    They are more interested in finding cheap and easy 
arguments to convince a jury their way, than they are in arriving
at the truth.

jon.