HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: What is consciousness?
Date: 20 Nov 1992 22:55:26 GMT
Organization: sgi
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <LoDFuB8w165w@kalki33>, kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
|> 
|> We have answered all your questions very precisely, but whether we
|> answer or not, you are too confused to understand anything. 

Could you please outline the procedure you employ to distinguish
between a poster who is "too confused to understand anything"
and one who does understand, but is not yet convinced?

|> Thank you for not posting any more useless replies to us. 

Could you please outline the procedure you use to decided which
replies are 'useless"?    A reply might be useless to you, and
yet illuminate points for other t.o readers.

|> We are very much in favor of the called for "boycott" if it means 
|> that there will be no more rubbish for us to sweep up.

Could you please outline the procedure you use to decide what is
rubbish?   For example, I pointed out that one of your claims - 
consciousnesses can contact one another directly and that this 
can be tested - leads to a recursive problem.  Namely: if A claims
to contact another consciousness B directly, then I can only check 
this directly by contacting A's consciousness directly.

Maybe I missed it, but I don't think you ever replied.   Was this
because what I said was "rubbish", or because of something else?

jon.
From: David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Random Chess Moves
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Nov 17 1992
Date: 17 Nov 92  09:03:16

Who: amorgan@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Crunchy Frog)
ID: 1992Nov13.224645.12836@csd-newshost.stanford.edu
 
[mid-sized cut]
 
DR> "There -ARE- computer programs that introduce randomization of
DR> its internal code, to produce better code. I've read of a chess
DR> program that does this! There are also defence department wargame
DR> computers that randomize, then retain the successes and discard
DR> the failures, so that "better and better" routines are selected
DR> for.
 
CF> "Another point is that the Tunster has been stipulating that
CF> we use well designed, carefully optimized code as our chess
CF> program. Funny, most animals I see in the world wouldn't
CF> qualify as "well designed" by a mile. If you want to make
CF> a computer program analogy, take a bug ridden, hacked up
CF> checkers program written in C that a Pascal programmer converted
CF> to play chess in a long weekend. Then see if you can make
CF> *that* better by random changes. A perfectly designed program
CF> almost by definition can't be improved, neither can a perfectly
CF> evolved animal. Neither one, however, exist."
 
Crunchy is right--- a very complex system, or several systems
working together, lends itself to psudo-random selection (reward
and punishment), while simple systems do not do well with random
attempts towards a goal (goal for life being "to survive long
enough to reproduce, and secondly to survive long enough to
defend that reproduction).
 
My twin brother works in telecommunications (poor bastard!). He
told me about the programs California TelCo use to find the best
route from point "A" to point "B" ("best" being the least number
of physical connections, or distance, or cable medium). Now, one
would think they'd do it logically (SMILE!), but some of their
programs use trial and error, within programmed constraints.
 
Once a path is determined, the program remembers to use that path
in other searches, yet it also -strives to improve- that path in
background time slices.
 
As it stands now, telecommunications is a sprawling monster that
covers almost all land masses, and most are connected in some way
to each other. Throw in communication relays that are in orbit,
radio and microwave stations. . . . telecommunications EVOLVED
and looks designed (hee! Sheeeeit!), but it has just as many
kludges as living organisms. No one really understands Ma Bell.
 
CF> If you are going to make stupid demands Lionel, you could at
CF> least stick to the point.
 
And my point? Er, ah, no point. Computers are great at compressing
hundreds of millions of years of evolution via natural selection
into the span of one's lunch break during work. Can you imagine
how much better life forms would have been designed if God had
had a computer?! (GRIN)
 
CF> C Frog
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu (scharle)
Subject: Re:  More (verbal) Flooding of "the" flood
Reply-To: scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu (scharle)
Organization: Univ. of Notre Dame
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 17:21:01 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.015904.4059@panix.com>, mls@panix.com (Michael Siemon) writes:
|> In article <1992Nov17.123322.9457@news.nd.edu> scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu (scharle) writes:
|> >In article <1992Nov16.164447.21120@linus.mitre.org>, m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
    [discussion about various civilizations apparently contemporaneous
with the Genesis Flood]

    Thanks to Michael for posting better information on that than
I had (I have to resist the temptation to post stuff without checking
first).  I'm glad that my misinformation got corrected.  The Egyptian 
records, and the rather dramatic evidence of the Pyramids do seem to 
be quite adequate counter-evidence to the idea of a world-wide 
catatrophic flood any time around 2300-2400 BCE.

    One other civilization which hasn't been mentioned is the Indus
Valley, which my memory tells me started around about that time.
Does anyone have any information on how reliably dated that is?
Unfortunately, we don't have anything that we can _read_ from the 
Indus Valley Civilization, so it's not as definitive as ancient 
Egyptian records.

    On the other hand, what range of dates do literalists take as
acceptable for the FLood?  I quoted Ussher's date of 2348 BC.
Someone else told me 2370 BCE -- do most of the estimates cluster
around this time, or does someone make it much earlier?  I've also 
seen 2104 BCE -- is there any later date?

    Then there's the Tower of Babel -- one source I've seen puts it
340 years after the Flood.  That all people had the same language
before that seems a little hard to reconcile with Akkadian and
Egyptian writings, doesn't it?

    I know by now that this is an old complaint of those of us who
believe in conventional story (people having been around for more 
than 10,000 years) but -- 

    Does any Biblical literalist have a brief outline (or even
better, a detailed one) of world history of ancient times (say, 
before 2000 BCE) which takes account of Egypt, Mesopotamia, India, 
Europe (like Stonehenge) or the Americas?  I'd suppose that there
would have to be a story about what got done before the Flood and 
what after.


-- 
Tom Scharle                |cm65n6@irishmvs(Bitnet)
Room G003 Computing Center |scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu(Internet)
University of Notre Dame  Notre Dame, IN 46556-0539 USA
From: skroger@zeus.calpoly.edu (Seth L. Kroger)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: More (verbal) Flooding of "the" flood
Date: 19 Nov 92 21:39:47 GMT
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo

m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
>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

I believe the Aztec civilization started in this millenium.  You must be
thinking of another Mesoamerican culture like the Incas or the Toltecs.

>	b. the GReat Pyramid of Gaza



|======================================================================|
| Seth Kroger                       "If God made us in His image we    |
| skroger@pan.calpoly.edu               have certianly returned the    |
| Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo             compliment."  -Voltaire        |
From: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 92 03:59:34 EST
Reply-To: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Organization: Kalki's Infoline BBS, Aiken, SC, USA

tlode@nyx.cs.du.edu (trygve lode) writes:

> Howdy, hope the tapeworm is doing well.

What does "the tapeworm" mean in this context?

> Just out of curiousity, are you
> familliar with a popular computer game called "Life"?  (Basically, it's
> a very simple cellular automaton "played" on a two-dimensional grid of
> discrete cells, rather like a large chessboard; in the standard version,
> the rules are that, if a "living" square has two or three neighbors, it
> will survive--any more or less, and it will die--and if a "dead" square
> has exactly three neighbors, it will become "alive" in the following 
> round.  Those are the rules--extremely simple and, since they are also
> symmetrical and invariant under translation, you can't even argue that
> information is "added" by the coordinates (a la your argument re fractals).)

The game "life" is not life, that is why you put quotes around "living"
and "dead". Actual life displays properties which are not reducible to
the interactions of elementary physical quantities. The game of "life"
is entirely reducible to its rules, boundary, and initial conditions.

> This is a very simple and easilly demonstrable example that fails to
> follow your concept of "statistical mechanics"--not only that, it's 
> even an entirely deterministic one; change the rules to probabilistic
> ones and you'll find that you can generate any desired level of 
> complexity you desire.  Amusingly enough, a moderate-sized grid to
> use for this game would be 700 units square and would be filled with
> a very complex pattern within about 400 turns--with whatever arrangement
> that results having a probability of occuring of around 10e-150000.

In what way does it fail to follow our concept of statistical mechanics?
As far as we can see, the game of "life" exactly follows the standard
concepts of statistical mechanics as found in any of the many textbooks
on the subject. What is your point?

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: Deaddog <adelling@gold.ucs.indiana.edu>
Subject: Re: Ted makes some sense!!!!!
Organization: Evolution-R-Us
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 01:47:45 GMT

Andy:

You are a diseased platypus.  Just thought you should know.  Fortunately
I am much too
busy to thrash you properly and show you the TRUE and SHINING light of
CREATIONISM,
and how all creatures were originally borne of Manne and His Creator, and
not any of
those evil icky things, like bacteria, no siree.

Non-woof
From: bz754@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Derek J. Wojciech)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Request Information for Young Earth
Date: 20 Nov 1992 20:39:36 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, tsc@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (tong.s.chen) says:

>
>According to the biblical dating, the earth should only be 6,000 to 10,000
>years old, not millions or even billions years old.  Can someone kindly
>supply me a copy on some scientific (or non-biblical based) arguments for
>young earth.
>
6,0000 to 10,000 years old???  I guess if you fall into Archbishop Ussher's
School of Biblical Dating.....  But let's graduate and look at the evidence
of an old earth, and listen to some good Hebrew scholarship which places
the date of the creation of Adam somewhere between 10,000 and 35,000 years
ago.
					L8tr,
						Derek


-- 
'Fire and Love, the two extremes |  wojciech@ossek.nrl.navy.mil /    ***.
that we live between, Fire and   |-----------------------------/    **   '
Love, there's more to life than  | Surfing or Snowboarding         ****
the eye can see.'  Guardian      |      ridin' the Wave........._-*********
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 23:12:56 GMT

In article <2mVHuB5w165w@kalki33>, kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
> johnsd2@vccnw05.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel Norman Johnson) writes:
>>>I agree with this statement. It is not necessary to have a planet to
>>>have life. In fact, matter is not neccessary for life.
>> 
>> Depends what you mean by life. But you may be right; matter
>> is required for life as we know it, but what else may be possible,
>> who can tell..
> 
>Yes, who can tell... Our point is that there is someone who CAN tell,
>and we follow his definition of life. The definitions of life given by
>reductionistic science are not able to account for many of the
>properties of life. One glaring deficiency of reductionism is in the
>area of consciousness, which is certainly a property of "life as we know
>it" but cannot be shown to follow from any known physical laws.

How can we know that consciousness is a property of life if your only definition
is that it is a property of life and it cannot be measured?  What evidence do
you have to back up this rather bold assertion?

> > My name's Dan, actually, not prabhu.
> 
> "prabhu" simply means "dear sir" or "master" in Sanskrit. It is a
> respectful form of address.

  Uh, I believe "prabhu" is Hindi, shishya.

 |  __L__
-|-  ___  Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub
 |  | o | kv07@iastate.edu
 |/ `---' Iowa State University
/|   ___  Math Department
 |  |___| 400 Carver Hall
 |  |___| Ames, IA  50011
 J  _____
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: robd@cherry09.cray.com (Robert Derrick)
Subject: Re: Who? Me?
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: 23 Nov 92 14:05:12 CST

Onar Aam (onar@hsr.no) wrote:
: Rob Derrick wrote:
: >But all of them, even Onar Aam, who was under the lash a few weeks
:                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
: >ago, have something in common.  They believe in something!  They are us.
: >
: 
: Ehhhhhm.... Why do I get this funny feeling that I am viewed as some sort of
: oddity or weirdo on this newsgroup? Do I sense a certain juvenile arrogance? 
: 
: 
: Onar.

Because, of all of those polarized pro-evolution, you have generated a
rather high level of controversy.  Of the newer people here, you have
rivalled Kalki, and perhaps exceeded Ray Cote, in actual verbage 
generated in opposition.  Every so often there will be a minor flare-up
amongst the regulars, like when Bruce Salem goes into the red with
an argument over the philosophy of the religo-politico agendae of 
TAE's, or when the occasional cladist picks a fight.  But you had the
entire gallery stirred up into a froth for a while.

Now me, I never could tell who was saying what and what it really meant
in the Onar Against The World dialogue.  So I was neither on your side
or against it.

But I was not unaware of it.

So, oddity or weirdo?  No, I wouldn't say that.  But unique, different,
unusual?  Fer sure!  Relax and enjoy the distinction, meanwhile honing
your old arguments for the coming lull (when KD slinks away to commisurate
with Druta).

--

rob derrick				robd@cherry.cray.com
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: What is consciousness?
Keywords: elf
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 22:51:56 GMT

In article <BxyD2F.5MM@well.sf.ca.us>, keithd@well.sf.ca.us (Keith Doyle)
writes:
> Kalki Dasa writes:
> >According to the Vedas, the soul is placed into a particular sperm
> >before the sperm unites with the egg. The placing is done by higher
> >authorities (it's their job).
> 
> Where does the additional soul come from in twins?  Or do they
> share the same soul?

  I would also be impressed if Kalki could point out where in the Vedas they
talk about individual sperm.  Since it requires a microscope to see sperm I
think most Hindus would be citing this as evidence for Veda accuracy.

  Come to think of it, I would be suprised if the Vedas mentioned humans coming
from eggs.

 |  __L__
-|-  ___  Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub
 |  | o | kv07@iastate.edu
 |/ `---' Iowa State University
/|   ___  Math Department
 |  |___| 400 Carver Hall
 |  |___| Ames, IA  50011
 J  _____
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: Bales is a liar: evidence - one case
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 14:10:58 GMT

In article <7602@tekig7.PEN.TEK.COM> bobb@tekig1.PEN.TEK.COM (Robert W Bales) writes:
}
}Reality check II:
}
}In article <1992Nov16.142216.16902@linus.mitre.org> m23364@mwunix (James 
}Meritt) writes:
}
}The issue is whether I lie and whether I have answered specific questions.  I
}wrote an article giving quotes from previous postings. Jim responded:
}
}>}>False.  Since we disagree, how about SOMEONE ELSE'S evaluation of the
}>}>contention.  BALES says that he has answered himself, MERITT says that
}>}>he has not.
}
}To begin with, the issue is not whether anyone likes or agrees with my answers.

Correct.  "like" and "agrees with" is not relevant for an answer.  Its existence is.

}For instance, to the question of what was positive for creation, I gave what
}I consider to be positive evidence for creation.  In objective terms, when
}somone asks "What is. . . ?", the statement "This is:. . . ." is, by
}definition, an answer to the question.`

Wrong.  As you pointed out, if you include yourself, "like" or "agree with" is
not relevant.  Hence, your "I consider" is equally irrelevant.

}But Jim wants to go on others opinions, he says.  Someone else wrote:

Right.  Other than mine, other than yours.

}>}My own evalutaion is that he has not answered the questions in any manner
}>}close to satisfactory.
}
}>}IMHO, his assertion that he has answered the questions has not been
}>}validated.  
}
}I must disagree.  If I have not answered them satisfactorily, I have answered
}them unsatisfactorily, which means I have answered them!

No you have not, in both my opinion and in that of a third party.
Your word that you answered it is as worthless as your word on the response.


Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu (scharle)
Subject: Re: More (verbal) Flooding of "the" flood
Reply-To: scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu (scharle)
Organization: Univ. of Notre Dame
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 12:33:22 GMT

In article <1992Nov16.164447.21120@linus.mitre.org>, m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
    ...
|> 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.
    ... 
    According to Bishop Ussher, the Flood occured in 2348 BCE.  Remember that
there was a considerable time between Adam and the Flood -- Methuselah
alone lived 969 years.
    As far as I can tell, the time of the building of the pyramids of Egypt began
around 2500 BCE and lasted a couple of hundred years, and thus causes 
considerable problems with a world-wide catastrophic Flood having occurred
about then.  There is also a continuous history in Mesopotamia covering
that era -- Sargon of Akkad began his reign somewhere aroud 2350 BCE.
Also, there is the civilization of the Indus Valley which has beginnings
somewhere around that time.
     However, I have doubts about the Aztec civilization beginning that
early.  Does anyone have some dates on Mesoamerican civilizations?

-- 
Tom Scharle                |cm65n6@irishmvs(Bitnet)
Room G003 Computing Center |scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu(Internet)
University of Notre Dame  Notre Dame, IN 46556-0539 USA
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: eschbach@abc.wrc.xerox.com (Reiner Eschbach)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Theory of Creation and Proof
Date: 20 Nov 92 13:31:50 GMT
Organization: Xerox

(Mark Meyer) writes:
> (John Viveiros) writes:
>> This post gets my vote for BCTOTY (Best Creation Theory of the Year).

>	Considering it's the only one that's ever been posted, big
>deal. :-)

I think you are malvolently excluding Last Thursdayism! LT'ism is by far the
most consistent and logical theory of creation. 


>Mark Meyer                                               | mmeyer@dseg.ti.com |

Reiner