HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lippard@violet.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Atheist Evangelical?!
Date: 16 Nov 92 19:53:00 GMT
 <watson.721755779@space.sce.carleton.ca> <14NOV199217202934@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu>
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <14NOV199217202934@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu>, lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) writes...
>This afternoon I attended more talks by John Clayton.  He did not, as I
> [...]
>He has a bunch of audiotapes, videotapes, and books available, and they
>are available for borrowing *at no charge*.  Audience members could fill
>out a form, drop it in a box, and he'll mail the stuff out.  He didn't
>ask for any donations, and he doesn't rent out his mailing list.
>(I don't have his address with me at the moment, but I will post it
>later on for anyone who is interested.  He has some kind of regular
>newsletter.)

Clayton's newsletter, _Does God Exist?_, has a circulation of 30,000,
all free, and is available from (and published by) the Donmoyer Avenue
Church of Christ, 718 East Donmoyer Avenue, South Bend, IN 46614-1999.
John Clayton himself may be reached at 17411 Battles Road, South Bend,
IN 46614-9702.

Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
From: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Would you believe anyway ???
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 92 10:26:41 EST
Reply-To: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Organization: Kalki's Infoline BBS, Aiken, SC, USA

esot@troi.cc.rochester.edu (Eric Sotnak) writes:

> >It is not possible that your quest was both sincere and unsuccessful.
> 
> 
>   Gee, thanks.  I sure THOUGHT I was sincere, but I guess good old God knew
> better.  Since I can't think of anyway to MAKE myself anymore sincere than I
> thought I was before, I guess God will just have to send to to hell, since
> he obviously isn't willing (or able) to provide me with sufficient evidence
> to convince me of his existence.

You sure THOUGHT your quest was unsuccessful, too, didn't you?

Sincerely,
Kalki "out of the frying pan" 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: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 92 15:39:35 EST
Reply-To: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Organization: Kalki's Infoline BBS, Aiken, SC, USA

ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles) writes:

>  Kalki, you've never *posted* your argument. At best, you've given a pointer
> to a place where we can shell out $10.00 for a copy. I am a dirt-poor
> grad student who is having trouble getting enough money for food. I can't
> afford to buy my brother a birthday present.
>  Do you have special student deal or something?
>  Any word on getting permision to serialize this proof?
>  Any chance you might paraphrase it? Post a table of contents? Quote key
> paragraphs? Do something more than say, "We really think this is unlikely,
> and you should too, but we won't tell you why?"
>  Is the author on the net? Can we get his email address and ask him about it
> personally?

Richard Thompson is in Europe untill November 30.

You can e-mail to Drutakarma Dasa at dkarma@pro-nbs.acme.fred.org if you
want to talk to someone who directly works for the Bhaktivedanta
Institute.

Sincerely,
Kalki "the galloping galapagan" 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: onar@hsr.no (Onar Aam)
Subject: Chess, Lionel Tun & Evolution
Organization: Rogaland University Centre
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 19:08:02 GMT

Lionel, picture this:

An alien comes to earth. Of various unknown reason the alien is obsessively
occupied with chess. And of other reasons he is able to get hold of a game of
chess. But of even more mysterious reasons he has not been able to get a complete
game, only every fourth position of the game. 



The alien has a task in life: find the rules of chess.


The question is, will he find them? 

He will most likely not find the rules. But he will probably be able to find some
general properties of the rules. For instance, that the pawns are unable to move
backwards. He will also notice that the number of pieces *never* increases. It is
either constant or decreasing. He might also notice that when a piece is removed
it is often replaced by one of the opponent's pieces which indicates that pieces
are allowed to capture the opponent's pieces. Also from the mobility of certain
pieces he might notice that the king has a low mobility and that the queen has a
high mobility. Maybe he notices that the Bishops always stays on black or always
on white and from this reasons that the bishops only can move along diagonals. 
From the pawn structure he can deduce that the pawns have a very narrow
mobility and are only allowed to capture along the positive diagonals. Finally he
might deduce that the king is a very important piece. And that in the endgame the
king becomes more active. 


 
Of course with the complete game, deducing the rules would be alot easier. But
since the complete game was unavailable, the alien was unable to accurately
describe the rules. Nevertheless, he was able to find some important general
properties.

Hopefully I need not explain the similarity to the study of biological
history. 

 
Onar.
From: tom.foster@synapse.org (Tom Foster) 
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Non-Opinion
Date: 20 Nov 92 08:08:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: SYNAPSE BBS - GATINEAU, QUEBEC - 819-561-4321
Reply-To: tom.foster@synapse.org (Tom Foster) 

 BBS: Synapse BBS
Date: 11-18-92 (21:44)             Number: 1356
From: LIONEL TUN                   Refer#: NONE
  To: ALL                           Recvd: NO
Subj: Laying a trap                  Conf: (1355) UT-origins
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LT>Please note, both Calculator and ChessMover are small (by
LT>today's standard) programs, lets say about 2 to 4K for the
LT>executable. Shreadsheet and ChessPlayer must obviously be
LT>of a more substantial size (I can't remember how big Lotus
LT>is). If you like, you can randomly modify the source code
LT>and compiler, rather than the executables, if you think this
LT>will make it less brittle. Random modification includes of
LT>course random additions. You might prefer the source code
LT>approach as the compiler will reject programs which will
LT>not even compile, let alone run. If you wish to modify
LT>the compiler, you can keep a copy of the old compiler to
LT>compile it with.

        Both programs would become extinct because at the instance of
        random modification, the complier would choke, and the code
        would be useless.  This points out how delicate the process of
        random selection is.  Often, it can mean the end of a species.

        On a slightly different thread, My view is natural selection and
        evolution are probably the same, in that that hand of the
        creator is matter itself, that being the fabric of the universe,
        and consequently the fabric of God.  This hand manifests itself a
        changes and adaptations to the organism and it's environment.  In
        other words, the working of creation is the process of selection,
        because God and the stuff of the universe are the same, to
        satisfy the notion that god is omnipotent and omnipresent.  This
        view goes beyond the narrow thought that everything must be
        an equation, or one way.  In fact, we may well find out that
        there are dualistic natures to most things.  In that we find
        the essence of non-opinion, - that two opposing having views
        may have at their root, one (or maybye two) distinct truths, of
        many possible.
From: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Date: 17 Nov 92 15:10:36 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:
>As far as we know no one has yet proposed a possible mechanism for
>abiogenesis that involves the nuclear forces in any way. If this is
>the case, and if the nuclear forces do indeed play a crucial role in
>abiogenesis, then, it would seem that there is less justification
>than ever for supposing that abiogenesis occurred, since it is now
>dependent on an unknown set of laws.

I see "we" are back to this total gibberish.

I repeat: using what passes for Kalki "thought", we could argue that,
since the nuclear forces do indeed play a crucial role in supernova
explosions, it would seem that there is less justification than ever
for supposing that supernovae occurred, since they are dependent on
an "unknown set of laws", as you call them.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
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  09:05:32

Who1: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
ID: ksand-121192183050@wintermute.apple.com
Who2: lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun)
And: maguire@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Bill Maguire)
 
BM> Here's something you could do with this game.  Take a set
BM> of these games, each with different random weights.  Have
BM> a little tournament then throw out the games that did the
BM> worst.  Duplicate the remaining games and modify the weights
BM> in the duplicates by a small random amount.  Repeat until you
BM> get bored.  Think that final set of games is any better than
BM> the first batch Lionel?
 
LT> A number of people have pointed out this sort of use 
LT> of `randomness' in the design of a program. But please note that  
LT> the program has been specially designed in this way. The use of
LT> randomness here is very specific and very tightly controlled. It
LT> is being used as part of the _design_ process.
 
KS> "Lionel, what's the difference between deliberate randomness,
KS> and randomness? 
KS> Kent"
 
Deliberate randomness: God did it.
Non-deliberate randomness: Satan / Carl Sagan did it.
 
(SMILE! for the humor-impared)
 
Back when I was young and lean and handsome, I learned a little
game theory while learning computer programming. There are times
when game theory seems like magic! Simple reward / punishment
improved performance--- it is also how some sort routines work.
 
KS> Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
KS> DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
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: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 22:49:03 GMT

In article <c28HuB7w165w@kalki33>, kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
> lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun) writes:
[the usual computer program analogy blather]
> These questions are testable in the following sense:

  Not really.  You just gave yet another scenario similar, but independant of
his.  What I really wanted to address was

> 5) If you are not sure whether the machine will eventually halt, then
> attempt to dissect the code to determine if it represents a valid
> algorithm or not.

  this is known as the halting problem.  If you have found a solution, please
publish it so you can claim your Nobel prize.

 |  __L__
-|-  ___  Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub
 |  | o | kv07@iastate.edu
 |/ `---' Iowa State University
/|   ___  Math Department
 |  |___| 400 Carver Hall
 |  |___| Ames, IA  50011
 J  _____
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: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 00:12:47 GMT

In article <1Ru9TB6w165w@kalki33>, kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
>MANDTBACKA@finabo.abo.fi (Mats Andtbacka Ktf92) writes:
>>In <Dso3TB12w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
>>>>  Please be real.  To model even the simplest organic reactions mathematic
>>>> is intractable.  (I assume p107 of the book you referred to earlier)
>>> 
>>> Well then the proposal of molecular evolution that life arose from
>>> reactions between simple organic molecules cannot be demonstrated, can
>>> it?
>> 
>>       That's not quite what he said... It might be quite some task to
>> *model it mathematically*, I think you'll agree.
> 
>He said "intractable".

From Webster's:

  in.tract'a.ble, a. [L. intractabalis, not to be handled, unmanageable; in-
priv., and tractibalis, from tractare, to handle, manage] not tractable;
specifically (a) hard to manage; unruly or stubborn; (b) hard to work,
manipulate, cure, treat, etc.

  Note that intractable != impossible.  It could certainly be done with a
powerful enough computer and several hundred man hours.  Of course, that is the
simple organic reactions.  The more complex ones, like a primordial soup, would
probably require millions, or even thousands of millions of man hours to even
get started.

  I would appreciate any counter evidence to back up your claim that this can be
"reduced to simple calculations".  My sister would probably be most gratefull
for a copy of these, she is having a particularly hard time in her stereoisomer
separation research.

 |  __L__
-|-  ___  Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub
 |  | o | kv07@iastate.edu
 |/ `---' Iowa State University
/|   ___  Math Department
 |  |___| 400 Carver Hall
 |  |___| Ames, IA  50011
 J  _____
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Post-Goedel confidences
Date: 15 Nov 92 16:25:36 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: tycchow@nevanlinna.mit.edu (Timothy Y. Chow)

In article <1992Nov13.221725.10364@galois.mit.edu>, tycchow@nevanlinna (Timothy Y. Chow) writes:
>	 The analogy with Goldbach's conjecture that you bring up later is
>a good one.  In the past, mathematicians would have been confident in
>saying, "Well, we don't have a proof either way yet, but we know that
>there *is* a proof one way or the other.  The problem is a mathematical
>one and can be solved by mathematical means."  After Godel, nobody is
>willing to say even this.

That's simply not true.  Platonism and logic are a powerful force in
assertions regarding open problems.  Just sometimes folks are wrong.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: Bales argument
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 16:38:02 GMT

In article <Bxo3nK.949@encore.com> bseymour@encore.com (Burch Seymour) writes:
}I would request that the Merritt v Bales be taken to e-mail. I doubt
}many of us care to split semantic hairs about lies vs whatever. Thank you.

No can do.  Reasons:
1. email to his address has been incredibly difficult in the past.
2. If the reason is to contest his deception, the counters would HAVE to be
   as public as the original propaganda from Bales.
3. The chance of influencing him is closer to zero than the spontaneous
   creation of a complex ecosystem (as he seems to advocate).  Hence, I do
   NOT see this as a disagreement with him (a useless action if ever I saw
   one) but actions to prevent his irrational lies from being believed as
   truth by seekers of truth - and this HAS happened in the past, here, with
   him.



}
}
}>In article <7540@tekig7.PEN.TEK.COM> bobb@tekig1.PEN.TEK.COM (Robert W Bales) writes:
}>>
}>>
}>>When we study the fossil record, we do not see an "almost-human" species from
}>>which humans could likely have evolved.  We see apes and we see humans.  We
}>>see no evidence that any organism transitioned between them.  The fossil
}>>agrees with what we would expect to see if man was separately created, but
}>>not with what we would expect if man evolved.
}>>
}
}I've always felt that the lack of transitional forms was not a problem. 
}What is the percentage of animal that have died, that became fossiles?
}Pretty dang small I'd guess. Using common sense (which another member of 
}this group has shown is very dangerous) I always thought that big steps
}in the decent of the species would take place in very localized
}populations. Then, when there was some disinct advantage, that group
}spread around enough to be found in the fossile record. I believe that
}is pretty much the same idea as "puntuated equilibrium". Not really a
}major leap in thought.
}
}To put it in terms Bales might understand (judging from his .sig),
}when I was in high school all the ocillioscopes I saw were big,
}vacuum tube monsters. Now all the 'scopes in our lab are semicondutor
}(except for the display). Now how likely am I to find transitional
}forms? If I went to the labs at Tektronix, I could probably find
}test stands where the intermediate forms of instruments are being
}built. But in the field we only see the previous generation and
}the latest generation. Not the in-between stuff. Why? Becuase the
}ain't much of it in the first place. And there is not opportunity
}for it to be spread.
}
}Think of a small area in the woods as the lab. Over time a new 
}trait develops. It provides such a great advantage that that animal
}start spreading the trait out of its area, until it becomes 
}universal. The chances of finding that area, and it's transitional
}fossiles is small. But these finds (as I understand it) do exist.
}
}Corrections welcome.
}
}-bs-
From: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Date: 17 Nov 92 02:22:08 GMT
Organization: animal -- coelomate -- deuterostome

In article <m7T9TB4w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
>kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu writes:

>Yeah, gee it's strange that these so-called "scientists" won't go out of
>their way to acquire something that disputes their cherished dream of
>being right.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but several people checked their libraries
and couldn't find the book. You (apparently) refuse to read info
contrary to your position right on this board (ex. I gave four
examples of speciation in my FAQ and yet you asked if any had been
documented in a post a few days later.) 

>Sincerely,
>Kalki "and the ancients thought that maggots were made from meat" Dasa

Yes Kalki, we know. They also eventually tested that hypothesis and
chucked it. Care to post your creation hypothesis so we can test it?

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"
From: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Reincarnation proved!!!
Date: 22 Nov 92 17:04:41 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: waynebro@juliet.caltech.edu (Broughton, Wayne Jeremy)

In article <20NOV199211582285@juliet.caltech.edu>, waynebro@juliet (Broughton, Wayne Jeremy) writes:
>>A student of mathematical theology was [...]

>Wow!  I wonder what that is?  Is God quantifiable now?

It's formal logic or game theoretic type stuff done in the context
of omnipotence or omniscience.  Very weird.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
From: cust_ts@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Tero Sand)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Atheistic creationism revisited
Date: 15 Nov 92 15:27:35 GMT
Organization: University of Helsinki

In article <1992Nov15.142243.4226@klaava.Helsinki.FI> cust_ts@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Tero Sand) writes:
>>The major difference between spontaneous creation of genetic
>>information
>>(SCGI) and mutation is that SCGI has no signifigant probability of
>>occurring randomly.  In addition SCGI can occur in more than one
>>individual
>>at the same time in a given population in a localized area.
> 
>Only in cells, though, eh? Not, for example, on the street?

Furthermore, to have an evolutionary affect, these SCGI's should happen
predominantly in gametes.

	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: esot@troi.cc.rochester.edu (Eric Sotnak)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: In case Bales has convinced you of his honesty...
Date: 18 Nov 92 17:13:58 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York

>In article <7630@tekig7.PEN.TEK.COM>, bobb@tekig1.PEN.TEK.COM (Robert W Bales) writes:
>|> On about Septeber 24, I posted a refutation of a number of items in Jim's
>|> list, including *specifically* the above.  If Jim responded, I didn't see
>|> the response.  He may not have seen my ~Sept. 24 article.  If he didn't, I
>|> will be glad to repost it.  In any case, the assertion above is flat wrong.

The problem here seems largely to do with what constitutes an answer or a
response to the questions put to Mr. Bales.  Bales seems to believe that he
can answer a question by saying something like, "It is POSSIBLE that x" or
"God could have done x" where x signifies some unspecified or vaguely
characterized alternative to a real scientific hypothesis.  Thus when Bales
is asked to specify some evidence that counts against the evolutionary
hypothesis, he says, "the fossil record".  (This is a lot like saying
"mathematics" when asked to cite evidence against the hypothesis that there
are odd numbers).

There is no doubt that Bales has failed to address numerous question put to
him (even in the pathetic manner described above).  There is no doubt that
Bales has said things that are untrue.  Whether he has deliberately said
things that are untrue (lied) is a question I don't care much about.  I'd
still like Bales to address in a substantive way the ice core data, and the
question as to just how, specifically, the theory of creationism (whatever
THAT may be) can endure the scientific method.
--
********************************************************************
Eric Sotnak                   |  One life.
esot@troi.cc.rochester.edu    |  One chance.