HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: a message to Kalki and his tapeworm
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 92 04:34:09 EST
Reply-To: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Organization: Kalki's Infoline BBS, Aiken, SC, USA

colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby) writes:

> In article <e0N3TB8w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
> 
> >If there isn't a model for abiogenesis "yet", then why do supposedly
> >reputable scientists make the premature claim that life arose from
> >non-life? Unless a model can be shown to be correct, then it is not
> >scientific to claim that the phenomenon occurred, is it? No one has ever
> >seen a living organism arise from an assemblage of lifeless matter, have
> >they?
> 
> In my college physics course, the prof told us there was no good
> explanation of gravity. The phenemena was well established, but no
> mechanism was known (Aside to any physics types Is this still true? 
> I don't know.) Having a mechanism generally helps (it helped plate
> tectonics become accepted), but isn't always needed to get something
> generally accepted in science.

So, then your point is that abiogenesis is "well established" like the
existence of gravity? Very well, then, SHOW US ABIOGENESIS. Show us
living organisms being formed from nonliving matter. Then we will accept
that the phenomenon is well-established like gravity. After all, I can
show you gravity in action. Can you show me abiogenesis in action?

> PS Say hi to your tapeworm from me.

I do not know what you mean by this remark. If it has some significance,
then perhaps you would explain it. If it has no significance, then
perhaps that is part of the problem with your so-called "science."


Sincerely,
Kalki
"we saw the maggots in the meat, therefore the meat made the maggots"
Dasa


       -------------------------------------------------------
      |  Don't forget to chant:   Hare Krishna Hare Krishna   |
      |                           Krishna Krishna Hare Hare   |
      |                           Hare Rama Hare Rama         |
      |                           Rama Rama Hare Hare         |
      |                                                       |
      |   Kalki's Infoline BBS Aiken, South Carolina, USA     |
      |        (kalki33!kalki@lakes.trenton.sc.us)            |
       -------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: Laying a trap
Keywords: Computer program, random, mutation, chess
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 00:55:16 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.133247.8546@city.cs>, lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun)
writes:
> 1
> Lets say there is a computer program which `knows' the
> legal moves of chess - lets call it ChessMover.
> ChessMover plays very poor chess because its moves are
> made at random. But it does play very fast. ChessMover
> is small, compact and extremely efficient. But it plays
> bad chess because it has not been designed with any
> chess playing algorithms at all.
> 
> Would it be possible to subject ChessMover to random
> mutations, so that eventually you evolve ChessPlayer,
> a chess program which plays very well, say at master
> level?

  Sure.  This is how I would do it:

  UUencode a grandmaster ChessPlayer.
  UUencode CessMover.
  Give both to me string evolver program.
  UUdecode the results.

  Since the string evolver program works by applying random mutations to a
string until it matches another string (using the evolutionary paradigm for
deciding which of the results of mutation to keep and which to accept) it is
doing random mutations.  I would include the option fro sex to increase the rate
of convergence.

  Now you may complain I'm not really mutating the program, but I am: at any
time I can uudecode the currently "best" evolved program and try running it.  If
it fails to run it is because it isn't sufficiently mutated.

  The same goes for problem 2.

 |  __L__
-|-  ___  Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub
 |  | o | kv07@iastate.edu
 |/ `---' Iowa State University
/|   ___  Math Department
 |  |___| 400 Carver Hall
 |  |___| Ames, IA  50011
 J  _____
From: cust_ts@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Tero Sand)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Laying a trap
Keywords: Computer program, random, mutation, chess
Date: 19 Nov 92 10:57:34 GMT
Organization: University of Helsinki

In article <1992Nov18.133247.8546@city.cs> lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun) writes:
>I would like to pose a couple of questions and gauge the
>reactions of evolutionists (and creationists if any are
>reading). As computer programs are flavour of the month..
>
>1
>Lets say there is a computer program which `knows' the
>legal moves of chess - lets call it ChessMover.
>ChessMover plays very poor chess because its moves are
>made at random. But it does play very fast. ChessMover
>is small, compact and extremely efficient. But it plays
>bad chess because it has not been designed with any
>chess playing algorithms at all.
>
>Would it be possible to subject ChessMover to random
>mutations, so that eventually you evolve ChessPlayer,
>a chess program which plays very well, say at master
>level?

This has been covered.

>
>2
>For those of you who are not game fans, but more business
>oriented:
>Consider a spreadsheet program such as Lotus123 or
>QuattroPro. Lets say you have a small calculator program,
>like the toy ones which pop up in some windowing front
>ends. Would it be possible to apply random mutations to
>Calculator until it evolves into Spreadsheet?

No, unless people selected 'for surviral' only those which look more and
more like a spreadsheet. It _would_ evolve into something completely
different.

Your suffering from the same delusion all creationists suffer, that
evolution has to have a target, a purpose (that is, human beings).

	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: waynebro@juliet.caltech.edu (Broughton, Wayne Jeremy)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Creation vs. evolution
Date: 18 Nov 1992 23:02 PST
Organization: California Institute of Technology
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: juliet.caltech.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <18NOV199222561374@juliet.caltech.edu>, waynebro@juliet.caltech.edu (Broughton, Wayne Jeremy) writes...
>(and as Mr. Reardon gives every indication of having).  It begins with a
             ^^^^^^^
 [ deleted ]
>available (though now out of print).  Mr. Reardon, I strongly suggest
                                           ^^^^^^^
My apologies for the misspelling.  These should read "Rearden". 
**********************************************************************

Wayne J. Broughton                 Take the road less travelled by.  
waynebro@juliet.caltech.edu    
Department of Mathematics,
Caltech, Pasadena, CA  91125

Caltech has no idea what my opinions are;  
they think I'm working right now...
From: kml@cellar.org (Scott Tiger)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: noah's ark
Date: 17 Nov 92 17:35:46 GMT
Organization: The Cellar BBS and public access system

mk452a@oktext.sbc.com (Mark Kamphaus) writes:
> The "V" is first thing that they should consider in a literal sense.
> The NIV is not the BIBLE.  It is a Version of the Bible.  Hope I
> didn't burst too many ballons with that piece of info.  Maybe Mr. Tiger
> would like to elaborate on why his version is the one to be embraced?
> 
I would be delighted to discuss any version (I'm sure there are better 
Hebrew scholars than I on the net, so can we limit it to English 
translations) of the flood story that you think implies a local flood.
Please be sure to provide the text you're referencing.  Unless the
translator botched it, its content will mirror the NEV I posted earlier,
which describes a year-long flood, 29,000 ft rise in water level, water
coming from within the earth, and all life being extinguished on the 
earth, as well as the need of the ark to hold all animals found on the 
earth.  Please post a version that does not maintain these points.

                  Something constructive should come here.
  kml%cellar@tredysvr.tredydev.unisys.com - My other account is a Mercedes.
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: consciousness: a Kalki sampler
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 22:41:09 GMT

In <eDLDuB2w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
>TMakinen writes:
>>Yes, it is a crude example. Another example is the factory robot and the
>>driver.
>>The robot has closed covering, so no one can see in and know for sure that
>>there is a driver inside. But those who understand robots know that the
>>robot is moving because there is a conscious driver program inside who is
>>steering, etc.
>
>No. Those who understand robots know that the robot was programmed by an
>intelligent being, and that is why it is moving.

 1. Yes, but the point is that unless the people truely understand robots they
will believe the above.  Thus you must show that your example with humans
matches reality, and is not a false assumption just like that above.

 2. My alife creatures are robots that were programmed by my computers random
number generator.  Is a random number generator intelligent?

In <ooNDuB8w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
>Matter is unconscious, the soul is always conscious. When the sense
>organs of an embodied soul are anesthetized, the soul may not be able to
>manifest its consciousness to those around it, but it is still
>conscious.

  If the soul is always conscious then memory must not be a function of the
soul, since a person who is knocked out looses their short term memory.  So what
does the soul do in your interpretation?  If it has no function it might as well
not exist.  If it is unmeasurable then it cannot be shown to exist.

In <JgPDuB13w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
>>  Uh oh.  Kalki just entered stage two of the Creationist on t.o.  After fali
>>to wow everybody into instant submission, he resorts to insult.  Stage three,
>>where reality finally sets in and he starts throwing patches onto his claims,
>>close at hand.  Lets hope he doesn't go all the way to stage 5: Tunism.
>
>Yes, we have some expert examples to follow here among you so-called
>"scientists".

  Whoops, there it is: stage 5.  And he was even warned.  All that is left is
Stage 6a (Holdenism) or 6b (Baleism) where he is either impervious to any form
of logic, or dissapears for a while in hopes we will forget his errors.

 |  __L__
-|-  ___  Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub
 |  | o | kv07@iastate.edu
 |/ `---' Iowa State University
/|   ___  Math Department
 |  |___| 400 Carver Hall
 |  |___| Ames, IA  50011
 J  _____
From: cust_ts@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Tero Sand)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: An Offer for Kalki (was Re: Probability of Evolution)
Date: 19 Nov 92 11:07:36 GMT
Organization: University of Helsinki

In article <1992Nov18.114837.1@si151a.llnl.gov> brinkman@si151a.llnl.gov writes:
>uses this argument to attack evolution/abiogenesis.  2) No matter how many
>errors are found, my set aside will never drop below $0, since you shouldn't
>have to pay me for the book.  3) Since certain errors, once introduced, will

Frankly, I don't see why not. Maybe that would make him/her/it/them more
careful.

	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: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 92 02:50:55 EST
Reply-To: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Organization: Kalki's Infoline BBS, Aiken, SC, USA

mrjg8679@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Michael R James) writes:

> Well, strictly speaking we have observed _effects_ which are interpreted
> to have been supernovae (i.e. bright light, etc.)
> Directly observed, no.

It's a question of proximity. Whether I am a million parsecs away or one
foot away, I still receive the "supernova" observation through my
senses. But either way, the phenomenon can be said to have been
"directly" observed, since it was actually seen and not just imagined.

> >Has abiogenesis been observed? No it has not.

> Again, directly observed, no.  But there is reason to believe that we
> have 'seen' one case, the effects of which are all around you(pl).

I don't see what this "reason to believe" might be. No one has observed
abiogenesis occurring from any distance, near or far. Abiogenesis has
been imagined only. So there does not seem to be any comparison with the
case of supernovas.

Sincerely,
Kalki Dasa


       -------------------------------------------------------
      |  Don't forget to chant:   Hare Krishna Hare Krishna   |
      |                           Krishna Krishna Hare Hare   |
      |                           Hare Rama Hare Rama         |
      |                           Rama Rama Hare Hare         |
      |                                                       |
      |   Kalki's Infoline BBS Aiken, South Carolina, USA     |
      |        (kalki33!kalki@lakes.trenton.sc.us)            |
       -------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: sdoe@nmsu.edu (Stephen Doe)
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Organization: New Mexico State University
Distribution: world, public
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 17:43:33 GMT

In article <J3Z9TB13w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
>schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher) writes:
>
>> Do you get a commission for referrals? Are you paid by the Bhaktivedanta
>> Institute to sell their brand of creationism on the Net?
>
>
>We get, as our payment, the pleasure of seeing self-proclaimed "rational
>thinkers" turn into the slavering, boot-licking, do-anything-to-be-right
>cowards they really are. While they snidely boast that they are far
>above our level of intelligence, and that they are not going to bother
>reading any book that conflicts with their delusion that they evolved
>from chickens, they nevertheless post at least 50 times a day their
>denials that they are going to pay any attention to us!
>
>Ahhhh, it feels sooooo good! Keep it coming, you impotent rascals!
>
>Come on home to Papa, little demons!

I'm still waiting for you to even acknowledge my e-mail on observed
speciation (you *did* say, "show me one species arising from another,"
did you not?).  While I don't want to make any hasty conclusions, your
last batch of posts, such as the one above, along with your refusal to
post any pertinent information relating to your argument (other than
your sacred chant, "read the book") prompts me to question both your
scientific acumen and your sincerity.  

If you want to talk about "do-anything-to-be-right-cowards," how about
people who make fantastic claims, offer no substantiation other than
"read the book," ignore e-mail containing a direct answer to a
challenge that they issued, and then start flaming others for being
somewhat skeptical?  I call such typical Creationists myself.

Steve "Ah, Creationist posts--no calories, 95% content-free" Doe
From: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Subject: Kalki devolves.
Reply-To: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 20:55:20 GMT

   I completely destroyed Kalki's hero's alleged proof and Kaliki
agreed I was right.  Ah ha! I say, a creationist actually 
accepting a correction.  But then...

    ...he ignored the fact he had agreed his stupid proof was garbage...

...and now instead of thinking up his _own_ insults, he modified 
one of mine to make it appear as if I were insulting myself:

In article <3FJFuB5w165w@kalki33>, kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
> danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock) writes:

                              [deletions]

>>    Therefore, by the powers granted me by the State of Intoxication 
>> I award delusion to myself in the name of my false ego and all that it
>> surveys.
> 
> Congratulations on your medal.
> 
> Sincerely,
> Kalki "the evolutionist's nightmare" Dasa

   No, no, "sleep aid".  Your proof you couldn't provide up front is garbage. 
The 2nd law of thermo police have noted it is _old_ garbage, which stinks
worse.  All insults are irrelevant; only fact, logic, and elegance count.  I
note, however, that my insults are better than yours.  Mine are stolen from
*M*A*S*H* while yours are stollen from me.

   I will warn you as I do the other creationist nitwits that dare to argue
with me that your rantings are being saved for evidence, used at a future time
to show impressionable youth that creationists can't tell their ass from a hole
in the ground.  You are my first noncristian example and will get a special
plaque and display case.

                                  !BLAM!

Dan
Danwell@IASTATE.EDU
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: Questions for Ted H.
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 14:31:15 GMT

In article <By6744.G4F@encore.com> bseymour@encore.com (Burch Seymour) writes:
}news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
}
}>RECOGNIZE when they are outside the areas of their expertise.  For instance,
}>there was a fellow who was a/the pioneer of the transister, and went on to
}>become a famous non-politically-correct genetic theorist.
}
}>Were this fellow to wish to tell me something related to transisters, I'd
}>listen eagerly.  Some of his other areas of interest would probably draw
}>a reaction of (you reading this, Harter?), BULLSHIT.  Caramba.
}
}
}So we should listen to a psychologist (or was it psychiatrist?) who makes
}astounding claims about physics?
}
}And how about you Ted? I thought you were a software engineer? 
}Yet you claim to present great insight on matters of history, physics,
}physiology, and chemistry.

Don't forget that, when asked, he claimed NO training in any of those fields.


Newsgroups: talk.origins
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Laying a trap
From: kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu
Date: 18 Nov 92 09:47:49 EST
Organization: Wesleyan University

In article <1992Nov18.133247.8546@city.cs>, lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun) writes:
> I would like to pose a couple of questions and gauge the
> reactions of evolutionists (and creationists if any are
> reading). As computer programs are flavour of the month..
> 
> 1
> Lets say there is a computer program which `knows' the
> legal moves of chess - lets call it ChessMover.
> ChessMover plays very poor chess because its moves are
> made at random. But it does play very fast. ChessMover
> is small, compact and extremely efficient. But it plays
> bad chess because it has not been designed with any
> chess playing algorithms at all.
> 
> Would it be possible to subject ChessMover to random
> mutations, so that eventually you evolve ChessPlayer,
> a chess program which plays very well, say at master
> level?

   If you used a selection mechanism (ie "killing" the ones that
lose the most), yes.  Someone posted a message about this a few
days ago.

> 2
> For those of you who are not game fans, but more business
> oriented:
> Consider a spreadsheet program such as Lotus123 or
> QuattroPro. Lets say you have a small calculator program,
> like the toy ones which pop up in some windowing front
> ends. Would it be possible to apply random mutations to
> Calculator until it evolves into Spreadsheet?

   Using the same mechanism, probably not.  But you would end up
with a supercalculator.  A spreadsheet uses the database-type
functions of storing data as its basis, the calculations are 
secondary.  If you took a plain database and allowed it to mutate
you might end up with a spreadsheet.

> Please note, both Calculator and ChessMover are small (by
> today's standard) programs, lets say about 2 to 4K for the
> executable. Spreadsheet and ChessPlayer must obviously be
> of a more substantial size (I can't remember how big Lotus
> is).

   Well, yes, that's why it would take so long. 

Karl
------
"Find a great ideal, a great purpose, marry it, and raise a family."
					 --Negativland, "U2"
From: rh@smds.com (Richard Harter)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Date: 22 Nov 92 06:13:45 GMT
Reply-To: rh@ishmael.UUCP (Richard Harter)
Organization: Software Maintenance & Development Systems, Inc.

A person using the byline of kalki dasa writes:

>2) The information content of a theory or set of laws, which is the
>length of the shortest computer program which will calculate solutions
>to the equations of the theory to an arbitrary degree of accuracy.

Does this make sense to anyone out there?  I understand information
theory, at least as in the sense that it was originally used.  I also
am familiar enough with the Kolmogoroff definition of randomness of a
finite symbol string.  Neither fits this statement.

Since Chris Colby has caught me up short on molecular evolutionists,
I am going to be cautious.  Does anyone know of a context in which
the quoted text makes sense?
-- 
Richard Harter: SMDS Inc.  Net address: rh@smds.com Phone: 508-369-7398 
US Mail: SMDS Inc., PO Box 555, Concord MA 01742.    Fax: 508-369-8272
In the fields of Hell where the grass grows high
Are the graves of dreams allowed to die.
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Date: 21 Nov 92 17:36:38 GMT
Distribution: world, public
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.


>Possibly the Kalki who read your mail is a different Kalki from the
>Kalki who responded to this post.  Does this mean there has been a
>communications breakdown among the various Kalkii?  

Since "Kalki Dasa" means "servants of Kalki" would it be more
appropriate to refer to them not as Kalkii, but as a Dasa-chain?
From: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Date: 17 Nov 92 14:47:05 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us

In article <H4LDuB4w165w@kalki33>, kalki33!system@lakes writes:
>Tell us, then, what role the strong and weak nuclear forces are
>supposed to play in abiogenesis.

The weak force is sometimes proposed as the origin of biochirality.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: More (verbal) Flooding of "the" flood
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 16:44:47 GMT

In article <12103@risky.Convergent.COM> bkorb@convergent.com writes:
}*finally* back to the flood:
}
}It will never be resolved here on earth.  There are too many contradictions
}in the scientific and historical evidence to really prove one side or the
}other.

I disagree.  _IF_ you assume accuracy in the part of the biblical description,
then the presence of 1 (one) non-flooded local on earth at the time would
be sufficient to show that it did not occur as described.  I refer you to
	a. The Aztec civilization
	b. the GReat Pyramid of Gaza

Both of these existed at the time of the so-called world-wide flood, yet
they were not flooded out.  Hence, the flood was not world-wide as claimed
at the time claimed.  Q.E.D.

Now, that does NOT say anything about local floods, what the natives
thought,...  just that it did NOT occur as described.