HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Men Evolved from Women
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 92 08:24:25 EST
Reply-To: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Organization: Kalki's Infoline BBS, Aiken, SC, USA

kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:

> > > To make a very long story very very short:  the primates were here
> > > before us, and they created us in their image.  
> > 
> > No. Biologically, humans are primates, so the statement that primates
> > were here before humans is logically invalid.
> 
>   Sorry Kalki, you have that backwards.  Let me rephrase the comment above:
>       Planes were around before jets.

No, this statement is invalid unless you specify what kind of planes.
The author didn't do that (at least not in the fragmented post I saw).

You can't say "class precedes element of class." You can only say
"element A precedes element B."

In any case, humans have been around since the creation of the planet,
as long as any other life form on earth. The whole argument is bogus
anyway. (Go ahead, jump on it! :-))

> > No. The most comprehensive explanation wins, not the simplest.
> 
>   No.  The simplest comprehensive explanation wins.  Any explanation that is 
> comprehensive looses automatically.  If there is no comprehensive explanation
> go find one, don't pick the "most comprehensive".

No. It's like this:

Most comprehensive = guaranteed to explain the phenomenon completely.
Simplest = not guaranteed to explain the phenomenon.

It is the comprehensiveness, not the simplicity, of the explanation that
is necessary and sufficient to explain the phenomenon. Simplicity is
neither necessary nor sufficient to do this. Comprehensiveness is the
substance, and simplicity is just fluff.

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)            |
       -------------------------------------------------------
From: lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Pissed off
Date: 1 Jan 93 00:06:00 GMT
Distribution: talk,local
Organization: University of Arizona
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <schnitzi.725840885@eola.cs.ucf.edu>, schnitzi@cs.ucf.edu (Mark Schnitzius) writes...
>[complaint about book vandalism deleted]
>Does anyone know of another source that printed Judge Overton's ruling
>in it's entirety?

There are several.  Try Michael Ruse, _But Is It Science?_, Prometheus
Books, 1989 (?).

Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
From: rowe@pender.ee.upenn.edu (Mickey Rowe)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: On God and Science
Date: 21 Dec 92 19:41:53 GMT
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <21DEC199211270751@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu>
     lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) writes:

> I can, and do, agree with everything [Eric Sotnak
> (esot@troi.cc.rochester.edu) said in article
> <1992Dec20.223129.25238@galileo.cc.rochester.edu>] without agreeing
> that the anthropic principle explains the existence of life.

Would you agree, however, that the (im)probability arguments about why
things are such that "life" could form are uninformative?  It seems
that that was the gist of the initial post to which you objected.  I
believe it was Mark Isaak who wrote what you called "a bad argument".
Mark did not claim that any anthropic principle "explained life", only
that:

}>}>>I, too, once marveled at the unlikelihood of everything in the
}>}>>universe coming together in such a way to create me.  Such an occurrance
}>}>>seemed wildly improbable.  Then I realized that, had all circumstances
}>}>>not been as they were, I wouldn't be around to marvel, so questions of
}>}>>probability are meaningless.  The probability of my existence, given that
}>}>>I exist, is exactly one, no matter what my theological assumption

If you agree with Eric, and your objection is merely that Mark hasn't
explained the existence of life, then I think you were a bit too
hasty.  Mark didn't claim to explain the existance of life; he only
claimed that Lionel's statements about its probability of occurrence
were somewhat meaningless.

>Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU

Mickey Rowe    (rowe@pender.ee.upenn.edu)
From: news@fedfil.UUCP (news)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Profound disappointment
Date: 30 Dec 92 22:30:49 GMT
Organization: HTE

In article <n0a44t@ofa123.fidonet.org>, Dr.Pepper@f241.n103.z1.fidonet.org writes:
^I have been telling people that this group had three factions: conventional
^science, creationism, and velikovskiism. Alas, the Tedster has revealed his
^true colors, he's not the third force, he's just a somewhat weirder
^creationist :( And like all creationists, when he can no longer trade punches 
^under the queensbury rules of science he whips God out like a derringer and
^attempts to blow away his opponents.

^Dammit Ted, i thought you at least had some originality. Guess i made a Jumbo 
^error.

Catastrophism is more or less orthogonal to the evolution/creation debate.

I myself come closer to being a creationist;  I certainly don't speak for
other catastrophists in this.

Which is not to say that I believe in a 6000 year old earth or that I do not
believe in <any> evolution.  I believe that a LOT of evolution has taken
place, and that the universe itself is very old.  I do not believe that our
complex lifeforms are traceable back to dust via evolution, and I do not
believe that there is any way of demonstrating the multi-million year
timeframes commonly given out for ages of life on this earth.


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


-- 
Ted Holden
HTE
From: Dr.Pepper@f241.n103.z1.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Uniformity: miniscule cause and mons
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Nov 17 1992
Date: 23 Dec 92  02:13:00

 > From: userDHAL@mts.ucs.UAlberta.CA (David Halliwell)
 > Message-ID: <dhalliwe.724716725@muskwa.ucs.ualberta.ca>

 >>T.o regulars have taken me to task for using the colloqueal "heat rises",
 >>rather than saying that heated air rises.  But "heat falls back"?

 >>See what I mean?  Sad, isn't it?

 >    Yes, it is sad, Ted. I don't see any connection between your
 > statement of "heat falls back" and Throop's statement "heat
 > released
 > when it falls back". The "it" is surely "the atmosphere" (is
 > english
 > your first language?), and if it requires energy to move the
 > atmosphere
 > upward (which would be transformed from "heat") then you get
 > that energy
 > back when you move the atmosphere back down (which could be
 > transformed
 > back into heat).

 >    Now, who is it that looks like an idiot, Ted?


Ah, point of order. Ted does not look like an idiot.

Idiots look like Ted.

+--------------------------+--------------------------------------+
| 10                    2  | Garden Grove Institute of Technology |
|        DR PEPPER         | Community Outreach Center            |
|                       4  |                                      |
+--------------------------+ Snail Addr: Unit #1, 7872 Trask      |
| Fight idolatry, burn a   |             Westminster, Ca  92683   |
| flag today.              | Modem:      714-894-7039             |
|                          | Fidonet:    1:103/241                |
|                          | Candynet:   42:1001/1                |
|                          | Internet:   Dr.Pepper@f241.n103.z1   |
|                          |              .fidonet.org            |
+--------------------------+--------------------------------------+

---
From: rowe@pender.ee.upenn.edu (Mickey Rowe)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: On God and Science
Date: 21 Dec 92 15:20:56 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <V7gZVB1w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
     writes:

>Well, I can observe that I have a conscience. Therefore that conscience
>is an "object" of my perception. 

You've already missed the boat here, Kalki.  Why do you presuppose
that something that you perceive to be an "object" is a unified
quantity with objective reality?  Perhaps you should find out more
about the problems with object classification.  You can start with
some low level processing, like Ramachandran's studies of the
perception of illusory contours.  Then you can look at some higher
level psychophysics by reading about Anne Triesman's work on "object"
perception.  Then you can move up to higher level classification
schemes by studying Martha Farrah's work on "object" recognition in
normal vs. brain-damaged individuals.

Aw skip it, you'd have to actually learn something about the
fragmentary nature of "consciousness" if you went that far.  You
wouldn't want to do that because it could destroy your entire world
view.  Sorry to take up your time :-/

>Sincerely,
>Kalki Dasa

Mickey Rowe     (rowe@pender.ee.upenn.edu)

P.S.  I didn't bother to read the rest of Kalki's post... I don't want
to waste too much time on them, so forgive me if I fail to point out
any other howlers in this particular piece of work.
From: lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: On God and Science
Date: 22 Dec 92 18:40:00 GMT
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <emc.725044151@tomalak>, emc@doe.carleton.ca (Eli Chiprout) writes...
>In <22DEC199200095590@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu> lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) writes:
> 
>>I took the question of interest to be the origin of life, not necessarily
>>the origin of the universe as a whole.  Surely there are probabilities
>>and evidence we can examine regarding life's origin (e.g., as is done
>>in Robert Shapiro's _Origins: A Skeptic's Guide to the Creation of Life
>>on Earth_).
> 
>But the anthropic principle,which you challenged, does not refer to 
>life's origins within the context of the earth alone.  It only attempts
>to answer the question "why is the universe so "constructed", the
>earth so "placed", the water content "just so", etc. for life to arise
>here.  The answer is that in places where things are not "just so" we
>would not be around to ask the question (and there may be VERY MANY such
>places in the universe, or in "previous" worlds).

Well, I think that "answer" is completely lacking in explanatory value.
Your parenthetical remark seems to hint at another explanation:  that
it is a matter of random chance, that there are (but why?) multiple
universes with different laws, so many of them that life was bound to
arise in some of them.  Stronger forms of the anthropic principle
(e.g., Barrow and Tipler's SAP and FAP) look like claims of backward
causation--it is *because* of our observations that the world is the
way it is.  Regarding claims that strong, I have to agree with
Martin Gardner's assessment that these are Completely Ridiculous
Anthropic Principles, or CRAP.

>I agree that
>we can get SOME sense of probabilities, though how good that sense
>is, is debatable, because of the enormous difficulty in recreating the
>early conditions on the earth, and for reproducing/understanding long 
>periods of time in the laboratory. So it is still not equatable
>to the 15 riflemen that one can see, judge, and measure.  

The point of the analogy was that there are two different questions
to which we'd like an answer.  The anthropic principle can only answer
the less interesting one.  (Why am I here?  Because all the riflemen
missed/because the conditions were right for life to arise.  The more
interesting question is why did all the rifleman miss/why were conditions
right for life to arise?  At some point the answer is probably going to
have to be "it just did," but the anthropic principle looks like an
attempt to disguise that fact and answer with "it just did" much
earlier than necessary.)

Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
Newsgroups: talk.origins,sci.astro,sci.physics
From: btd@iastate.edu (Benjamin T Dehner)
Subject: Re: Cosmos without Gravitation
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 09:00:54 GMT

In <725930661@sheol.UUCP> throopw@sheol.UUCP (Wayne Throop) writes:

>: From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
>: Message-ID: <1992Dec28.133106.22923@linus.mitre.org>
>: In _Cosmos_Without_Gravitation_, Immanuel Velikovsky writes:
>: > Phenomena not in accordance with the Theory of Gravitation:
>: I would say, not in accordance with his understanding...

...

>The point is, Velikovsky, and Ted much like him, sees things in little
>black and white pseudo-logical categories.  They use fuzzy, qualitative
>reasoning in places where many conflicting quantatively graded effects
>are involved, and then by sheer assertion pick one of these effects and
>pronounce it dominant over all the others, without ever going to the
>trouble of calculating ANY of the effects involved. 

	Several times I have requested models/calculations from Mr. Holden,
with no result.  As a specific example, I have asked for model atmospheres
of Venus which SHOW that pure solar energy cannot give the observed tempera-
ture profile.  As we are only now begining to understand global atmospheric
dynamics, I find it unlikely that this request will ever be answered.

>--
>Wayne Throop  ...!mcnc!dg-rtp!sheol!throopw


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin T. Dehner    Dept. of Physics and Astronomy 
btd@iastate.edu       Iowa State University 
                      Ames, IA 50011
From: David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Does Anyone Believe Bales?
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Nov 17 1992
Date: 21 Dec 92  08:46:16

Who: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
ID: <1992Dec18.134510.18861@linus.mitre.org>
 
JM> "Does anyone believe Bales? Anyone at all? There is not a
JM> chance of changing his mind, so I see no reason to waste
JM> time with that. What I wish to present is information to
JM> those who may believe him. If there is no such person, I
JM> see no reason to demonstrate Bales veracity - or lack of it.
JM> email response in the affirmative is welcome.
JM> No negative replies are necessary."
 
Well, I have a positive negation (smile).
 
Mr. Bales is by far one of the better contenders out of the
Creationists who contribute here. He often gets his facts a
little skewered, he often misdirects issues with round-house
"straw-man" punches, and he ignores inconvieniant facts.
 
Still, he's better than Ted, right? Right!
 
Mr. Bales called the ACLU "against Creationism." I am a card-
carrying supporter of the American Civil Liberties Union, and
I took offense: he made a false assertion, and then used that
assertion to back up other assertions. That's a dirty trick,
and ACLU members were not here to defend themselves. The ACLU
is very much the defenders of religious freedoms, and thus
they are defenders of Creationism.
 
Creationism, being a religion, does not belong in public school.
It is -that- which the ACLU defends when it opposes Creationism
in school and the "equal time" bullshit. For Creationism to be
"taught" in schools is against MY RELIGIOUS FREEDOMS, because
it indoctrinates my children into the Creationist cult against
my will. Small wonder Creationists do not like the ACLU, even
though the ACLU is is actively protecting their rights.
  
                                                      ___
                                                     (o o)
       ---------------------------------------------w--U--w---
      |                                                       |
      |    Creationist's chant:   Is Not! Is Not! Ain't So!   |
      |                           Liar! Liar! Read the book!  |
      |                           Is Not! Is Not! Is Not,     |
      |                           Ain't So! Too Improbable!   |
      |                                                       |
      |   Satan's propagandaline, 666 south damnation alley,  |
      |               hell.university.underworld              |
       -------------------------------------------------------
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Next?
Date: 23 Dec 92 19:21:40 GMT
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA

In article <BGARWOOD.92Dec23125644@sngldsh.cv.nrao.edu> bgarwood@sngldsh.cv.nrao.edu (Bob Garwood) writes:
}"JM" == James Meritt <m23364@mwunix> writes:
}JM> In article <1658@tdat.teradata.COM> swf@tools3teradata.com (Stan Friesen) writes:
}JM> }In article <1992Dec17.133858.6071@linus.mitre.org>, m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
}JM> }|> 
}JM> }|> What is next?
}JM> }|> 
}JM> }|> talk.origins:  On the evolutionary side, homo sapiens is seen as merely the most recent
}JM> }|> step in a series of rungs in a ladder.  What do you see as the "next rung"? 
}JM> }
}JM> }There is no next rung because there *are* *no* *rungs*.
}JM> }Evolution is *not*, I repeat *not* a ladder, it is a mucking great *bush*.
}JM> }
}JM> }Humans are not even the most recent species to evolve.  There are several new
}JM> }species that have evolved in historical times.
}
}JM> That's nice.  Unfortunately for your "*" speel, I specified one branch in
}JM> particular...
}
}Unfortunately for you, ladders don't have branches.  Which is why
}a bush is a more useful simile (metaphore?) than a ladder and which
}is clearly where the confusion came from.

So, if you gave it a moments thought, it would have been obvious that I wasn't
TALKING about the entire thing, wouldn't it?  And since I specified the
lineage, there wouldn't BE any branches...  Once they branched out, they were
no longer included.

Sheesh.  Excuse me for thinking.  Forget it.
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: schnitzi@cs.ucf.edu (Mark Schnitzius)
Subject: Pissed off
Organization: University of Central Florida
Distribution: talk
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 22:28:05 GMT

Went to look up the text of Judge Overton's 1982 Supreme Court decision
(striking down the Arkansas law allowing "creation science" equal time
in the science classrooms) which was printed in entirety in the Feb. 19,
1982 edition of Science magazine, only to find it had been summarily
ripped out.  I checked, and sure enough, other articles about evolution 
had also been removed.  I suspect this was done by the same person who 
has taken it upon himself to pepper certain other books on evolution in 
the library with little snippets of creationist arguments and biblical 
verses, scribbled in the margins.  What is this person trying to prove?  
Does he think he can rewrite history?

Sorry to vent the steam here.  This is not an attack on creationists in
general, just on the idiotic book-burning individual who is launching
his crusade to rid our library of the scourge of evolutionary dogma.

Does anyone know of another source that printed Judge Overton's ruling
in it's entirety?

----

Mark Schnitzius
schnitzi@eola.cs.ucf.edu
University of Central Florida
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Subject: Lionel Asserts...
Reply-To: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Organization: Iowa State University
Distribution: world,local
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 16:00:17 GMT

In article <1992Dec22.122611.21699@city.cs>, lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun)
writes:
> esot@troi.cc.rochester.edu (Eric Sotnak) writes:
> >Mr. Tun has made the mistake of claiming that since the
> >(antecedent) probability of life existing (or having come into existence) is
> >so low, supernatural agency must be involved.  Another mistake in judgment.
> 
> I would not have said low, but rather zero - ie impossible. The
> mistake is in assuming that if there are enough `tries' then
> something that is impossible becomes possible.

   Why is it impossible?  Because you don't want it to be possible?
Or have you got some reasoning or evidence this time?  I hope
not.  I'm not prepared to have hell freeze over.

Dan
Danwell@IASTATE.EDU
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: Cosmos without Gravitation
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 18:10:08 GMT

In article <1hq1ueINNhev@hpscit.sc.hp.com> dave@ptp.hp.com (Dave Waller) writes:
}In article <1992Dec29.164826.5044@linus.mitre.org> m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
}>In article <1992Dec29.143703.7029@hsr.no> onar@hsr.no (Onar Aam) writes:
}>}>13.  If planets and satellites were once molten masses...they would not have been
}>}>able to
}>}>obtain spherical form, especially those which do not rotate, as Mercury or the 
}>}>moon (with
}>}^^^^^
}>}>respect to its primary)
}>}
}>}
}>}That is simply not true. The moon is rotating (ever heard of earth rise?)
}>}although only slightly. 
}>
}>wobbles, not rotate.  If it rotated, 100% would (eventually) become visable.
}>It doesn't.
}
}I believe you are incorrect on this one, Jim. The moon MUST be rotating,
}and indeed, it's period is about 28 days. Otherwise, how could it orbit
}the earth once every 28 days and keep the same face oriented at the
}earth's surface? Think about it.

Please note line 8, "respect to its primary".  Naturally, it does wrt sol.

}As for the "earthrise", well, that is simply wrong. What this person
}must be referring to are some of the pictures that have been taken close
}to the earth-relative horizon on the moon, which gives us a neat image
}of the earth "rising" over the horizon.

Well, there is an "earthrise" from the viewpoint of the craft that took the
picture.  It was the apollo command capsule in orbit of the moon, and the
pictures were taken as it came out from "behind" the moon. Of course,
the earth is stationary as seen from the surface - useful, since they 
aimed a number of antennae at terra when they landed and they stayed
pointed at the (motionless) earth.