HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bvickers@valentine.ics.uci.edu (Brett J. Vickers)
Subject: The Cambrian "explosion" (was Re: Ray Cote's funny Arkeology)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Reply-To: bvickers@ics.uci.edu (Brett J. Vickers)
Organization: Univ. of Calif., Irvine, Info. & Computer Sci. Dept.
Date: 27 Jan 93 19:30:21 GMT

cotera@woods.ulowell.edu writes:
>Did I ever say everything in the Bible can be explained by science?  This is
>why I don't consider myself a Scientific Creationist.  I realize that God
>intervenes (quite often) in the natural world.

Then in answer to the following question:
>> Can we finally close the book on scientific creationism now?

Ray replies:
>As soon as you can disprove God's existence, you can.

How perplexing.  First Ray says the Bible cannot be fully explained by
science, and that he is not a scientific creationist for this reason.
Then, in a stunning display of illogic, Ray supports scientific
creationism in his next sentence.  Is it any wonder why creationists
believe the bizarre things they do?

>> Oh Ray, what do you want to know about the Cambrian explosion?  What
>> it is?

>No, I'd like to hear your naturalistic explanation for why diverse (sp?) life
>suddenly (geologically speaking) appears in the fossil record.

It's really quite simple.  Invertebrate anatomy is (not surprisingly)
resistant to fossilization.  You see, bones and other hard things are
what get fossilized.  Being that most invertebrates lack a large
number of hard parts, they are difficult to find fossils for.  There
are wonderful exceptions, including the Burgess shale, where an
overwhelming number of soft-bodied invertebrates were able to have
some of their characteristics preserved.  But for the most part,
invertebrates are extremely underrepresented in the record due to
their soft anatomy.  So the Cambrian explosion refers to an explosion
in the number of fossil remains, not to an explosion of life.  Get it?
Got it?  Good.

(You really should try to do more than parrot Gish and Morris.  Not
one thing they have stated has stood up to scientific scrutiny yet.)
--
Brett J. Vickers
bvickers@ics.uci.edu
From: rlg@omni (Randy garrett)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Moon Dust
Date: 25 Jan 1993 18:05:28 GMT
Organization: IDA, Alexandria, VA
NNTP-Posting-Host: omni.ida.org
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

One piece of evidence advanced for a young universe concerns
the depth of dust on the moon.  In my younger years, I remember
quite a bit of concern about the depth likely to be encountered
on the moon.  Many people expected 20 - 40 feet of the stuff
based on calculated accumulations.  Fortunately for Neil 
Armstrong, there turned out to be much less -- of order
a few inches.  Anyone know what the accepted reconcilation
of the discrepancy is?
From: David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: "Darwinism" and Mr. Johnson
Date: 26 Jan 93 17:32:24 GMT
X-Sender: newtout 0.06 Jan  3 1993


 
Who: system@kalki33.lakes.trenton.sc.us (Kalki Dasa)
What: <4JJqXB6w165w@kalki33.lakes.trenton.sc.us>
 
> "Mr. Johnson, what, exactly, is 'Darwinism?' You've used the
> word several dozen times in each of your long articles, but you
> have not told the readers what the word means. How does
> 'Darwinism' relate to science, evolutionary theory, and the
> topic at hand? A three of four line explanation would be nice,
> but please feel free to be elaborate with your answer. Or offer
> a reference. By dictionary doesn't have the word.
 
KD> "Read his book, Darwin on Trial."
 
Ah, we're back to the "read the book" answer to all questions.
 
I'd be pleased as punch to read the book. You may send it to
me, or Mr. Johnson may send it to me, free and postage paid,
to: 9500 Jeronimo Road, Irvine, California, 92718.
 
Since Mr. Johnson is a Creationist, no matter that he professed
otherwise (if it quacks like a duck), I won't pay to read his
occult prattle. I will, however, read it for free and post
criticisms.
 
                                                      ___
                                                     (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              |
       -------------------------------------------------------
 

--- Squish v1.01
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: They want to debate Phillip Johnson
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 00:43:49 GMT

In article <C1DrDw.39y@world.std.com>, pduggan@world.std.com (Paul C Duggan)
writes:
> In article <1993Jan24.134326@IASTATE.EDU> kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren
Vonroeschlaub) writes:
> >In article <qXiuXB1w165w@kalki33.lakes.trenton.sc.us>,
> >system@kalki33.lakes.trenton.sc.us (Kalki Dasa) writes:
> >>The basis of Darwinism is materialism, i.e. the proposition that 
> >>there is nothing in existence except matter and material energy, and 
> >>nothing ever influences matter except other matter or material energy.
> >
> >  False.
> >[...]
> >  If you cannot devise a test for these things, then they might as well not
> >exist.  What difference does it make?
> 
> A test that a scientist would use would be a test involving material energy
> or matter, would it not?

  Would involve matter, yes.  But Kalki says, and I quote, "nothing ever
influences matter except other matter or material energy".  So he is suggesting
that these "other forces" can influence matter.  That means that they can be
tested for by experiments involving matter.

> So how is that you describe the materialist
> presupposition of Darwinism as "False"?

  No scientist I know of would deny objective experiments that show the
existence of something other than "matter and material energy".

> You seem to be saying the
> exact same thing by your request for a material test.

  Not a "material test", a test that demonstrates the existence of these
non-material forces in an objective way (any test that doesn't also apply to
pink elephants).

 |  __L__
-|-  ___  Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub
 |  | o | kv07@iastate.edu
 |/ `---' Iowa State University
/|   ___  Math Department
 |  |___| 400 Carver Hall
 |  |___| Ames, IA  50011
 J  _____
From: system@kalki33.lakes.trenton.sc.us (Kalki Dasa)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: For-sale ads on sci.math??
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 93 04:34:08 EST
Organization: Kalki's Infoline BBS, Aiken, SC, USA

kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu writes:

> >> >The recent upsurge of "I have a book for sale" messages on sci.math is
> >> >very annoying. Usenet etiquette is that these ads are inappropriate. I
> >> >request the posters of such ads to stop.  [signature omitted]
> 
>    Is this the same Kalki Dasa who was urging everyone on talk.origins
> to spend $10 on Richard Thompson's book when no one could find it in
> any library or bookstore?  Or is it perhaps another one?  Or even the
> nefarious tapeworm?!

Same Kalki. However, there is no comparison between my activities and
those of someone who posts an advertisement whose sole purpose is to
sell his personal property. You are making as much of this as you can,
according to your demoniac nature. But I am innocent and free from all
hypocrisy in this matter. Take your best shots, demons!

> > 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.
> 
>    As well should you, Kalki, revel in the holy words printed in my 
> own sig, especially the quote from Duke, which will bring you eternal
> happiness and warm fuzzies.

Your own sig is useless, materialistic propaganda, suited only for those
who are destined for darkness. "Dropping acid" is a sure route to
spiritual suicide, and life is far more than what we can "touch and
see."

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      |
      |           (kalki@kalki33.lakes.trenton.sc.us)           |
       ---------------------------------------------------------
From: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: "sting" ray cotera's understanding of evolution
Date: 28 Jan 93 00:44:19 GMT
Organization: animal -- coelomate -- deuterostome

In article <1993Jan25.145853.1@woods.ulowell.edu> cotera@woods.ulowell.edu writes:
>In article <1993Jan23.233659.24533@microsoft.com>, russpj@microsoft.com (Russ Paul-Jones) writes: 
>> Human embryos develop gill-slits at an early stage, later to lose them.

>It's my understanding that evolutionists no longer view this as evidence for
>evolution.

Ray,
Do you want to give a source for your "understanding", or just admit
that you don't have any idea what you are talking about. Here's
your chance to make me look like an idiot on t.o. -- produce a
reference from a scientific source that says gill slits are no
longer viewed as evidence for evolution. I don't think you can do it.

>--Ray Cote

PS Have a nice day.

Chris Colby 	---	 email: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu	---
"'My boy,' he said, 'you are descended from a long line of determined,
resourceful, microscopic tadpoles--champions every one.'"
 	--Kurt Vonnegut from "Galapagos"
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: Dr.Pepper@f241.n103.z1.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Topic for Discussion?
X-Sender: newtout 0.06 Jan  3 1993
Date: 25 Jan 93  12:36:00

 > From: philjohn@garnet.berkeley.edu (Phillip Johnson)
 > Message-ID: <1jo29o$srt@agate.berkeley.edu>

 > 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.  On that basis, what is there to discuss?

It would help if you would state the theory of creationism. Why is this so
difficult? We have cajoled, begged on our hands and knees, and even offered
bribes, but no creationist has yet done so. If you would only do that we would 
all be surprised and delighted, and definitely willing to discuss it.

+--------------------------+--------------------------------------+
| 10                    2  | Garden Grove Institute of Technology |
|        DR PEPPER         | Community Outreach Center            |
|                       4  |                                      |
+--------------------------+ Snail Addr: Unit #1, 7872 Trask      |
| Clinton *can* be our     |             Westminster, Ca  92683   |
| Santa Claus-- *if* we    | Modem:      714-894-7039             |
| are willing to be the    | Fidonet:    1:103/241                |
| elves and the reindeer.  | Candynet:   42:1001/1                |
|                          | Internet:   Dr.Pepper@f241.n103.z1   |
|                          |              .fidonet.org            |
+--------------------------+--------------------------------------+

---
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: FAQ's
Date: 26 Jan 93 20:23:16 GMT
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA

In article <1993Jan26.183304.199877@zeus.calpoly.edu> skroger@zeus.calpoly.edu (Seth L. Kroger) writes:
}kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu writes:
}>   Is there an ftp site where all the t.o FAQ's are available?
}
}I've never seen one mentioned before.  FAQ's that are cross posted to the
}group news.answers are automatically archived at pit-manager.mit.edu (aka
}rtfm.mit.edu).  

Not exactly.  That is a moderated group, and they have imposed  constraints on the
formats such that the effort expended exceeds my interest in doing so.

Q.E.D.
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: jwo@cs.cornell.edu (John W. O'Leary)
Subject: Re: Evolution implied by the Bible
Organization: Cornell Univ. CS Dept, Ithaca NY 14853
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 22:39:01 GMT

In article <1993Jan25.144819.1@woods.ulowell.edu> cotera@woods.ulowell.edu writes:
>In article <91710c3e@ofa123.fidonet.org>, Dr.Pepper@f241.n103.z1.fidonet.org writes:
> 
>> Now please state the theory of creationism.
>
>I think I've discovered why no one wants to put the theory of Creationism on
>t.o.  I keep seeing in the Creation Research Science Quarterly ads asking
>people to send money so that a model can be developed.  This is no small task. 
>CRS has only been around for 30 years or so, and they have to review all the
>scientific data.  

I guess it's too much to hope that creationists will be silent until all
the scientific data is reviewed and a model is developed?

>However here is the Theory of Creationism in a nutshell: God created the
>universe.

Hey, that's enough for me!

>--Ray Cote


-- 
John W. O'Leary jwo@ee.cornell.edu  Ph. 607-255-4323  FAX 607-255-9072
School of Electrical Eng, 338 Theory Ctr, Cornell U, Ithaca, NY  14853
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Ideology and Indoctrination
Date: 26 Jan 93 00:41:10 GMT
Organization: sgi
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <1k1u4lINN69f@fido.asd.sgi.com>, livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
>
>                                           On the other hand,
> as Gould's colleague Eldredge has pointed out, it's sometimes
> possible to follow the gradual evolution of a species - the 
> example was trilobite eyes, I think - for millions of years, so
> it was probably very tempting to assume that this was very
> common.

When I re-read this, I realised that it could be misleading.
Eldredge pointed out the millions of years part of it, the
comment that this could make it tempting to assume that this
was very common is mine.

jon.
From: ABPD103@UCSVAX.UCS.UMASS.EDU (John F. Donoghue)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: uniformitarianism doesn't rule out catastrophes
Date: 21 Jan 1993 14:34:05 GMT
Organization: UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS - AMHERST
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: deimos.ucs.umass.edu
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.24

In <1993Jan21.125825.13667@news.nd.edu> scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu writes:

> In article <1765@tdat.teradata.COM>, swf@tools3teradata.com (Stan Friesen) writes:
>     ...
> |> The epistemically *correct* formulation - the only one that can be defended as
> |> a valid assumption, nay, a necessary assumption, of science - is the much weaker
> |> formulation that the physical laws that describe the processes operating in
> |> nature have not changed over the past.
> 
>     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 
> uniformity over time is equivalent to conservation of ...?  Or are we
> talking about completely different things?
> 
> -- 
> Tom Scharle                |scharle@irishmvs(Bitnet)
> Room G003 Computing Center |scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu(Internet)
> University of Notre Dame  Notre Dame, IN 46556-0539 USA

You are close.  The equivalence of the laws of physics at all points in
space and time gives rise to the conservation of four-momentum, or in
the pre-relativity language, energy and ordinary 3-d momentum.  The
equivalence of all directions is "isotropy" which gives rise to the
conservation of angular momentum.

Hans Dykstra
Physics Dept., University of Massachusetts
abpd103@deimos.ucc.umass.edu
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: Flake theories, a litmus test?
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1993 22:16:59 GMT

  Alot of verbage has gone into a discussion of how to detect "pseudoscience". 
I might as well post my method.  I simple do a text search for the following key
phrases:

   "Beyond relaity"
   "Outside the universe"
   "scientific conspiracy"
   "I will not listen to your arguments"
   "That" <insult> <any famous person> "!!!"
   "I'm not an expert, but I must be right"

  Feel free to add you own to the list.

 |  __L__
-|-  ___  Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub
 |  | o | kv07@iastate.edu
 |/ `---' Iowa State University
/|   ___  Math Department
 |  |___| 400 Carver Hall
 |  |___| Ames, IA  50011
 J  _____
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun)
Subject: Theory of evolution - doomed
Organization: City University, London
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 93 16:59:39 GMT

It seems to me that the theory of evolution is suffering
severe setbacks here and may soon be entirely in ruins,
being bashed down under the onslaught of pure logic and
powerful science.

--
  ________  Lionel Tun, lionel@cs.city.ac.uk  ________
 / /_  __/\       Computer Vision Group      /\ \__  _\
/___/_/_/\/ City University, London EC1V 0HB \ \___\_\_\
\___\_\_\/        071-477 8000 ext 3889       \/___/_/_/
From: bvickers@valentine.ics.uci.edu (Brett J. Vickers)
Subject: Re: Who does Phillip Johnson think the creationists are?
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Reply-To: bvickers@ics.uci.edu (Brett J. Vickers)
Organization: Univ. of Calif., Irvine, Info. & Computer Sci. Dept.
Date: 25 Jan 93 19:51:03 GMT

>> Are there
>> any scientific claims made by creationists that have not been
>> falsified, and what are they?

Ray Cote's reply to this question is illuminating because it clearly
illustrates the scientific bankruptcy of creationism.  He comes up
with three answers to this question, not one of which is a scientific
claim that has not been falsified.  Let's look at them one by one.

cotera@woods.ulowell.edu writes:

>    1. God's existence.  Some may believe this is unscientific, but I argue
>	that it has a profound impact on scientific thought.

This requires almost no response since Ray himself admits that it
is not a scientific claim to say that "God exists."  The fact
that he even included it at all suggests to me that he felt his
list was too short and had to add at least one more claim so
as not to appear ignorant.  Backfire.

>    2. Non-constant speed of light (although I for one don't beleive this is
>	central to Creationism).

This is the one scientific claim made (or repeated) by Ray Cote that
can be answered.  It is falsified.  See the next article.

>    3. Non-constant decay rates (I'll try to get a list of secular sources
>	that actually show that the decay constants of radioactive substances
>	can change).

Unsubstantiated, therefore there is nothing to answer.

>There are probably more, but I can't think of any off the top of my head.

The fact that you can think of only *one* scientific claim that
creationists have made -- one that has been falsified, by the way --
suggests to me that you do not accept scientific creationism on its
scientific merits, but on its religious merits.  You did not even
think the *one* scientific claim you made was central to creationism!
Thank you for illustrating the creationist's typical sheep-like
behavior when it comes to discussing his "science."

--
Brett J. Vickers
bvickers@ics.uci.edu
From: lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Evolution on Christian TV
Date: 26 Jan 93 05:18:00 GMT
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1993Jan25.142943.1@woods.ulowell.edu>, cotera@woods.ulowell.edu writes...
>It's interesting to note that a Gallup poll, either from '91 or '92, said that
>something like 80% of Americans don't believe in evolution.

Your accuracy is astounding.  It was a December 1991 Gallup poll, in which
47% of Americans agreed with the statement that "Man was created pretty
much in his present form about 10,000 years ago."  This places an upper
limit on young-earth creationists at 47%, but even this is doubtful
because of the poor wording of the statement.

Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
From: bill@bessel.as.utexas.edu (William H. Jefferys)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Mr. Johnson please read this
Date: 27 Jan 93 13:38:26 GMT
Organization: McDonald Observatory, University of Texas @ Austin

In article <107784@bu.edu> colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby) writes:
#At the end of the first chapter of his book, he says:
#
#"My purpose is to examine the scientific evidence on its own
#terms, ..."
#
#My question to Mr. Johnson is:
#
#Would you like to discuss the scientific content of your book
#"Darwin on Trial"? I have a copy sitting right here on my desk.
#
#>Phillip E. Johnson
#>  School of Law, University of California, Berkeley CA 94720
#
#Chris Colby 	---	 email: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu	---
#"'My boy,' he said, 'you are descended from a long line of determined,

Yes, I would like to see such a discussion. Chris is quite
capable of discussing the science (and I think the rest of
us can leave it to him to do this, to cut down on bandwidth).
What I want to know is, Is Professor Johnson up to such a
discussion?

How about it, Professor?

Bill
From: jsanders@phys.ksu.edu (Justin M. Sanders)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Talk.Origins Fallacies (was: Re: Flake theories, a litmus test?)
Date: 22 Jan 1993 20:12:13 GMT
Organization: Department of Physics, Kansas State University, Manhattan KS, USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: curie.phys.ksu.edu

In article <1993Jan22.103554.1@si151a.llnl.gov> brinkman@si151a.llnl.gov writes:
>   I would suggest that all "pseudoscience" (on talk.origins) at any rate
>can be discerned based on the inclusion of one or more of the following
>fallacies.
>
[nifty list of fallacies deleted]

I would add:

Argumentum ad Hominem Stramineum (from stramineus-- adj. "made of straw")
   The strawman argument.  "The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics says everything
tends to become disorderly."


--
Justin M. Sanders    "the great tragedy of Science-- the slaying
Dept. of Physics        of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact."
Kansas State Univ.                         -- T.H. Huxley
From: swf@tools3teradata.com (Stan Friesen)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Gould vs. Johnson
Date: 26 Jan 93 01:14:15 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <146837@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV>, dk@imager (Dave Knapp) writes:
|>    
|>    In reading the materials Dr. Johnson has posted here, as well
|> as some others not posted, it seems that his main concern is that
|> scientists are reflexively rejecting any notion that something
|> supernatural was involved in the creation of complex life.  My
|> problem with this line of argument is that it leads to a "God of
|> the gaps" theology that I find distasteful.  This theology leaves
|> room for God only in those things that _cannot_ be explained
|> naturally.  The big problem is that every time something is
|> explained by science, God is diminished.

Of course He is!  That is why I have long since rejected any such approach.
That our approaches are subtly different is not really a big issue, the net
result is pretty much the same.

|>    My other comment is that I believe that those who consider
|> theism and Darwinian evolution incompatible are guilty of a
|> rather profound anthropomorphism of God: they insist that God
|> _must_ behave in a causal, physically detectable manner.  

Yep, isn't it amazing that Creationists can never seem to understand this!
[I have said much the same myself, on other occasions].

-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com