HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Dr.Pepper@f241.n103.z1.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Future evolution of Creationism
X-Sender: newtout 0.06 Jan  3 1993
Date: 09 Jan 93  05:08:00

 > This post was largely motivated by the recent discussion on Hugh
 > Ross'
 > book "The Fingerprint of God".  His position seems to be that
 > the
 > scientific evidence for an old universe and the Big Bang is
 > irrefutable,
 > that this virtually proves the existence of God, that biological
 >
 > evolution could not have occurred (at least not naturally), and
 > that
 > his interpretation of events fits not only the scientific
 > evidence but
 > also the Bible a lot better than the usual ICR line.  I suspect
 > that
 > this doctrine could become more prevalent and eventually
 > displace the
 > "Young Earth" model, as people start to face up to the
 > geological and
 > astronomical evidence.  Even the ICR seem to hedge their bets
 > more than
 > usual on the issue of the age of the Earth/universe, pointing
 > out that
 > their "model" does not *require* a young world necessarily.

Interesting. That would be like a parasite (creationism) evolving to a form
less harmful to its host (intellectual integrity). How astonishing:
evolutionary models can make predictions about creationism. Let's see if they 
can do the reverse.


+--------------------------+--------------------------------------+
| 10                    2  | Garden Grove Institute of Technology |
|        DR PEPPER         | Community Outreach Center            |
|                       4  |                                      |
+--------------------------+ Snail Addr: Unit #1, 7872 Trask      |
| Un-pa-tri-o-tic (adj):   |             Westminster, Ca  92683   |
| protesting when the      | Modem:      714-894-7039             |
| government wants to kill | Fidonet:    1:103/241                |
| people.                  | 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: Mark's Laws of Biology
Date: 6 Jan 93 17:48:25 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <1ichi8INNojs@uwm.edu> markh@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Mark) writes:

>I propose these very general laws on a linkage between procreation, aging and
>complexity:
>
>(1) In all species, over the long term, the average birth rate is equal to the
>    average death rate.

As Tero pointed out, this *really* depends upon the time scale you're
talking about.  It's no secret that the birthrate in humans is
currently higher (3% per year?) than its deathrate.  I suspect the
only "long term" for which your assertion would hold would be a time
period that encapsulated the species' entire temporal existance.

>(2) Species will age if and only if their average rate of attrition is greater
>    than the reciprocal of its average birth rate.

I don't know what it is that you mean by "species will age".  What
does it mean for a *species* to age?

>(3) A species average birthrate decreases with increasing complexity of the
>    species.

"What is complexity?" is a frequent topic in this group (mainly
because creationists claim that it's something that can't increase
without intelligent guidance).  Do you have a good answer for the
question? 

>Consequences of these laws would follow:
>(1)a Life expectancy decreases in inverse proportion with increasing birth rate
>     as compared between species.
>
>Are laws (2), and (3) consistent with actual biological data? ((1) is
>obnviously valid).

I suggest that you look into the work of Stephen Austad.  His primary
research interest is in understanding what are the proximal and distal
causes of aging in different animals.  If I recall correctly (a long
shot :-) his major thesis is that predation leads to increased rates
of senescence.  That is, if the probability is high that you're going
to get munched on at some point in your life, it's in your interest to
live fast and die young.  One of his major coups was in discovering a
population of possum that are relatively safe on an island off the
coast of north carolina.  These possum tend to reach sexual maturity
later and live longer than their mainland counterparts.  I'm pretty
sure that he has moved the possum to different locations and
demonstrated that these properties are intrinsic to the animals, and
not just differences brought on by being reared in different
environments (i.e. the differential aging rate is a genetic
polymorphism).  

I think you'll have a hard time defining complexity in such a way that
these two groups of possum (they're geographically isolated, but
otherwise fully interfertile I think) have different amounts of it.

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

P.S.  Do the terms k-selected and r-selected mean anything to you?
From: arandia@panix.com (Joel Arandia)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: I need transitional knowledge
Date: 9 Jan 93 04:53:59 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC

I'm not a biologist, heck, I'm not even a scientist.  I'm not a creationist.
I'm just confused.  Could someone(maybe with a phd) explain to me how a fossil
becomes transitional?  I mean who decides that a fossil is transitional and 
what marks it thus?  Some creationist guy is buggin me and telling me that
Archeopteryx is a MOSAIC form.  I guess he means that just because something
has attributes or both bird and reptile doesn't mean that it's related to 
either.  Yeah, it does sound stupid, but I can't figure out a good rebutt.
And what are the other 'birds' that he tells me are in the same strata?

ruprecht
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Subject: Remarkable assertion|was: ...WATCH OUT...
Reply-To: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 20:02:22 GMT

In article <MMEYER.92Dec30130453@m2.dseg.ti.com>, mmeyer@m2.dseg.ti.com (Mark
Meyer) writes:

   I leave it to others with more time to play devils advocate on the
rationalization of Genesis with itself; that's not my pidgin.  On the
other hand:

>John M. sez:
>> Deep thought:  the seventh day is not closed out in the Genesis
>> account...  Hmmm...  Funny how the extinction of species and the
>> "completion" of biblical creation coincide, and the arrival
>> of anything _new_ has fallen off sharply.  Maybe in God's rest chaos
>> is once again getting its say...

   The arrival of new things seems to me to have gone up.  Certianly strains of
insects and bacteria with novel chemical properties are on the increase (e.g. 
pecticide and antibiotic resistance).  Likewise genetic engineering is being
used to create new creatures in ways not possible before.  The theory of
evolution would indicate that when the environment changes radically (human
civilization in this case) the speciation rate should go up, n'est pa?

   Does John M. have facts&figures to back his remarkable claim, or does he
merely believe it to be so because it coincides nicely with his philosophy?
Admittedly there is a net loss of spiecies but I guesstimate that the rate of
production of "new" creatures is way up, just not enough to counternballance
the extinction events.
 
>> Merry CHRISTmas!!
Happy Hollidays
>> John M.
> Mark Meyer                                               | mmeyer@dseg.ti.com

[rant-n-rave mode ON]

   Doesn't ANYONE get an education in quantatative techniques?  I keep
hitting people who not only believe what they want to believe, damn the
inconvinient evidence, but who also are of the opinion that their beliefs
coincide well with quantatative evidence they haven't looked at.   Calling
such and effort "Deep Thought" just twists the knife.
                               *grumble*

[rant-n-rave mode OFF]

   My personal thanks to Mr. Meyer for forwarding this.  An interesting pile of
words.

Dan
Danwell@IASTATE.EDU
From: co187@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Thompson)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Pissed off
Date: 11 Jan 93 16:45:24 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


Re: Overton's decision

The text was reprinted in its entirty in "Evolution vs Creationsm:
the Public Education Conroversy" edited by Peter Zetterburg.  
Good luck!

-- 
John Thompson		co187@cleveland.freenet.edu
FIDO 1:139/610		John.Thompson@f631.n139.z1.fidonet.org
Internet		thompsoj@vaxa.cis.uwosh.edu
From: tlode@nyx.cs.du.edu (trygve lode)
Subject: Re: A funny from the U.K.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix @ U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 93 07:23:11 GMT

In article <1993Jan4.224144.4713@nsisrv.gsfc.nasa.gov> jgacker@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker) writes:
>
>    Prompted by an
>especially striking outburst from a retired mathematician insisting that
>TIME has INERTIA, users have developed a Crackpot Index.  Forewarned
>is fore-trashed.
>	You get 40 points for claiming a revolutionary theory that
>claims no concrete, testable predictions;  10 for comparing yourself
>favourably to Einstein or Darwin (but 20 for Newton);  10 for claiming
>that special or general relativity, quantum mechanics or the theory
>of evolution are fundamentally misguided;  5 for each word in caps or
>for each string of exclamation points;  10 points for pointing out that
>you have been to college, as if this was evidence of sanity;  30 for
>claiming that the scientific establishment is engaged in a conspiracy
>to prevent your work from gaining its well-deserved recognition;  20 for
>stating that you deserve a Nobel prize;  and so forth.

[...] 

>	I want to play!!!!!!!   I want to play!!!!!!
>	Evolution has been disproved!!!!!
>	Sir Isaac Newton would have been PROUD of me to find out that
>VELIKOVSKY's MODEL is supported by the PRINCIPIA, and if the loud-
>mouthed BRAGGARTS of talk.origins would stop pestering ME, I would
>PUBLISH this work IMMEDIATELY and receive due RECOGNITION, such as
>a NOBEL PRIZE!!!!!
>
>This could be a  lot of fun.

Hmmmm...seems we could have a quite a contest brewing.  I've posted a
few things that have tried to push the envelope of crackpotness, but
I've always had trouble with the difficult art of knowing just which
words to capitalize.  Alas, however, no matter whether I'm promoting
Norse Creation Theory, arguing that we're actually made of "holes" in
the sea of zero-state particles created by the expansion of the fabric
of space, or defending my now-infamous paper "On the In-House Experimental
Verification of the Non-Conservation of Parity and Quantum Mechanical
Tunnelling of Macroparticles," my abilities in this regard pale beside
those of the masters of the field--the always delightfully funny Robert
McElwaine and, of course, the incredible master of the art who gave us
the following post I saved from sci.physics.fusion nearly two years ago:

 
Article 375 in sci.physics.fusion:
Xref: mnemosyne.cs.du.edu sci.physics.fusion:375 sci.energy:1390
From: swf@tools3teradata.com (Stan Friesen)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Response to the Response to the Flood FAQ, part 2
Date: 4 Jan 93 22:28:06 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <1992Dec31.184608.6523@aurora.com>, isaak@aurora.com (Mark Isaak) writes:
|> 	The second condition, anomalously "young" fossils in older rocks, is
|> _very_ uncommon.  You don't, for instance, usually find Mesozoic dinosaur
|> fossils mixed with Cambrian trilobites.  In all the examples I have seen,
|> contamination of lower rocks by material from higher up is the explanation.
|> For example, some Ordovician or Silurian marine limestones in the central
|> U.S. contain what appear to be Carboniferous-age land vertebrates ...
|> However, the
|> explanation is again simple, since the land vertebrates occur in narrow
|> vertical crevasses in the limestone, filled with reddish terrestrial
|> sediments.  The interpretation is that they fell into the crevasses from
|> above, while the limestones were exposed to erosion during the
|> Carboniferous.  When spores are analyzed from the crevasse sediments, they
|> too are Carboniferous.

You might also point out that this phenomenon too, like reworking, can be
observed happening today. (Particularly since aerially exposed limestone is
quite susceptible to fissuring - due to undercutting by water).

-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
From: salem@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Bruce Salem)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Evolution implied by the Bible
Date: 9 Jan 1993 01:55:11 GMT
Organization: Stanford Univ. Earth Sciences
NNTP-Posting-Host: pangea.stanford.edu

In article <1993Jan8.082002.21091@smds.com> rh@ishmael.UUCP (Richard Harter) writes:
>
>
>Does it say anything about Mary?  Do creationists accept immaculate

	No, they just make lots of assumptions!


Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: jgacker@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker)
Subject: A funny from the U.K.
Organization: Goddard Space Flight Center
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 22:41:44 GMT


	From the Feedback section of "New Scientist"

	All editors know that when they receive a letter written in
green ink and capital letters, it's likely that the writer will turn out
to be persecuted by microwaves from the Russian Embassy.  The world of
electronic communications has its equivalent:  the message on your
screen literally sprinkled with capitals.
	For some reason the physicist's area of the academic network
Internet attracts more than its share of this.  Prompted by an
especially striking outburst from a retired mathematician insisting that
TIME has INERTIA, users have developed a Crackpot Index.  Forewarned
is fore-trashed.
	You get 40 points for claiming a revolutionary theory that
claims no concrete, testable predictions;  10 for comparing yourself
favourably to Einstein or Darwin (but 20 for Newton);  10 for claiming
that special or general relativity, quantum mechanics or the theory
of evolution are fundamentally misguided;  5 for each word in caps or
for each string of exclamation points;  10 points for pointing out that
you have been to college, as if this was evidence of sanity;  30 for
claiming that the scientific establishment is engaged in a conspiracy
to prevent your work from gaining its well-deserved recognition;  20 for
stating that you deserve a Nobel prize;  and so forth.
	Naturally, someone took the time to write a program to mark
messages automatically.  Due to the difficulty of getting a computer
to understand the concept of "favourably", the programme gives you
points just for mentioning Newton, Darwin, Velikovsky, or the
Bermuda Triangle.
	The result?  A bundle of spoof messages aiming for maximum
score.  And the index's author himself ranked number 6 in the crackpot
league table.

	I want to play!!!!!!!   I want to play!!!!!!
	Evolution has been disproved!!!!!
	Sir Isaac Newton would have been PROUD of me to find out that
VELIKOVSKY's MODEL is supported by the PRINCIPIA, and if the loud-
mouthed BRAGGARTS of talk.origins would stop pestering ME, I would
PUBLISH this work IMMEDIATELY and receive due RECOGNITION, such as
a NOBEL PRIZE!!!!!

This could be a  lot of fun.

	Jim Acker
	jgacker@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov
From: salem@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Bruce Salem)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Permo/Triassic quandary
Date: 6 Jan 1993 20:22:32 GMT
Organization: Stanford Univ. Earth Sciences
NNTP-Posting-Host: pangea.stanford.edu

	I am not clear about how Jim's discussion of asteriod
impacts in the history of the sieberian traps, or in other
possibly pivotal plate tectonic events, relates to the rest
of the discussion in talk.origins . I am not suggesting
that Jim embraces the type of Catastrophism being otherwise
debated, nor am I questioning the geologic sense of what
he is writing about. It would seem to me that as we don't
really know what the driving mechanism for plate tectonics,
the mantle is convecting and that seems to drive crustal
turnover but we do not know why, that asteroid impacts
are a uniform part of the history of the earth and that
they have catastrophic effects, but their rare inevatibility
is strictly Uniformatarian in process. If anyone is suggesting
that asteriods have a literal big impact on plate tectonics
that I would like to hear more discussion of how.

Bruce Salem

Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: Plato's STATESMAN/Age of Kronos
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 13:45:42 GMT

In article <191@fedfil.UUCP> news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
}
}
}
}As I've amply demonstrated in a number of t.o articles, neither the
}sauropods, nor the large flying creatures of the antediluvian age,
}either pterosaurs or teratorns, nor the largest carnosaurs could live in
}our world;  all positively required a heavily attenuated perceived
}gravity to exist.

False.  You claimed, not demonstrated.
From: tycchow@riesz.mit.edu (Timothy Y. Chow)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Future evolution of Creationism
Date: 7 Jan 93 23:44:59 GMT
Organization: None.  This saves me from writing a disclaimer.

In article <96109@rphroy.ph.gmr.com> hamilton@gmr.com writes:
>In article <1993Jan7.152448.8339@nsisrv.gsfc.nasa.gov> jgacker@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker) writes:
>>
>>	I'll try to be brief -- I think that in the U.S. there is a
>>general waning of educational standards, and with this, an ignorance that
>>leads to acceptance of current Creationism preachings.  
>
>This is part of it.  Another part comes from the tendency of many 
>fundamentalists to shy away from putting the kind of effort into 
>understanding the Bible that their high school English teachers should
>have taught them to put into understanding, say Shakespeare.

Actually, I don't think that fundamentalism stems primarily from an
*inability* to understand the Bible or science.  Certainly at the beginning
of this century when the fundamentalist movement was just starting, there
were not a few Calvinist scholars in their ranks, who could hardly be
accused of lacking the intellectual resources to understand the Bible.
The key point is that fundamentalists believe that their commitment to
Christ necessitates

1. affirming the infallibility of the Bible; and
2. a literal reading of narrative passages in the Bible.

Christians who are not creationists almost always believe that their
commitment to Christ does *not* necessitate both of these beliefs, and
deny either 1 or 2.  One of the key factors in understanding the
fundamentalist movement is to understand the theological background behind
it.  Nineteenth century liberalism had rejected both 1 and 2 with a
vengeance, and led to theology that was irrelevant and lifeless.  The most
natural reaction to this was to affirm both 1 and 2.

Most Biblical scholars nowadays view both classical liberalism and
fundamentalism as being too extreme and have come to some kind of middle
ground.  Both of the extreme views however still have lots of adherents
outside the scholarly world.

If you take 1 and 2 as axioms then no matter how intelligent you are you're
pretty much going to have to embrace some kind of creationism.  Thus for
someone who wants to fight creationism, a better tactic than simply trying
to improve education overall is to try to convince people that their
commitment to Christ does not necessitate 1 or 2 (or to figure out some way
to get them not to be committed to Christ---but this is a rather more
difficult task in general).
-- 
Tim Chow     tycchow@math.mit.edu
Where a calculator on the ENIAC is equipped with 18,000 vacuum tubes and weighs
30 tons, computers in the future may have only 1,000 vacuum tubes and weigh
only 1 1/2 tons.                               ---Popular Mechanics, March 1949
From: rh@smds.com (Richard Harter)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Evolution implied by the Bible
Date: 8 Jan 93 08:20:02 GMT
Reply-To: rh@ishmael.UUCP (Richard Harter)
Organization: Software Maintenance & Development Systems, Inc.

In article <1993Jan7.152453.22580@netcom.com> stassen@alc.com writes:
>What's happened so far:  Rich Harter made a joke posting about
>inheritance of "original sin."  Several people couldn't tell
>that it was a joke.

>There are actually serious creationist works on the same topic.
>In front of me is a "technical" article on the "sin mutation"
>which changed Adam and Eve's genotypes during the Fall, how this
>is inherited by everyone, and how Christ was created without it.

>See:  Anderson, Albert S., 1992.  "Magnificent Miracle: The Virgin
>Conception of Jesus" in _Creation Research Society Quarterly_
>Volume 29 Issue 2, pp. 89-97.

Gaaaak.


Does it say anything about Mary?  Do creationists accept immaculate
conception? 


-- 
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: knightb@abulafia.b14.ingr.com (William B. Knight)
Subject: Re: Evolution implied by the Bible
Organization: Intergraph
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 17:26:15 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.233055.18716@smds.com> rh@ishmael.UUCP (Richard Harter) writes:

>
>Theory of Creation Science:  Not available.
>

This course will be offered next year.  Previously offered and cancelled due
to time constraints, etc. of the various instructors.

Brad
>-- 
>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.


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

Newsgroups: talk.origins