HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: integrity and Mr. Tun (part inifinity)
Summary: a very large, scathing flame
Keywords: flame
Date: 6 Nov 92 18:34:50 GMT
Organization: animal -- coelomate -- deuterostome

In article <1992Nov6.135408.29580@klaava.Helsinki.FI> cust_ts@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Tero Sand) writes:

Lionel:
>>Example: would you like to take a ride in an Airbus
>>whose computer program was modified randomly? Why
>>not? After all, the theory of evolution states that
>>this is how improvements are generated.

Tero:
>Lionel, you're an idiot.

(Those of you who don't enjoy flames may wish to skip this post.)
----------------------------------------------------------------

Becoming a mere idiot would be an advancement. Sheer lack of mental
faculties cannot fully explain his behavior here on t.o. He has
been told numerous times that evolution is not due soley to chance
events. Chance events (e.g. mutations) are "sorted" by natural 
selection. Lionel, however, does not have the moral fiber to wage
a fair fight; he is a lying drone, chanting the litany of his
cartoon mythology. I don't think it is possible to tell if he is
purposely lying or if his religion(*) has such a stranglehold on his
(admittedly minimal) thought-processes that he can no longer tell
the difference. If the entities in Lionel's delusions were, say,
Elvis and Andy Kaufman and not God and the Devil, and he twisted
reality to meet their percieved demands first, I am fairly certain
his mail address would be tun@padded.cell. When it comes to discussing
the evidence regarding evolution, Lionel is simply incapable of telling
the truth. Idiots can't understand reality, Lionel _refuses_ to, there
is a difference.

(*) Before anyone leaps down my throat I'll point out that, in
my way of thinking, "Lionel's religion" does not translate to
"Christianity in general" (although it may apply to a some
fundamentalist sects). Recalling my days as a Lutheran(**), I don't
remember being taught that God had constructed a marvelous hoax
regarding the evidence of evolution, or that scientists were
scheming Satanists or even that shutting my brain to "off" and
swallowing dogma whether it made sense or not was a good thing.
There seems to be significant differences between Lionel's worldview
and the worldviews of other Christians on this board. Don't confuse
my comments here with an attack on Christianity.

[(**)Bob help us all, it's another tangent -- In college, when I
became an atheist, several of my friends (Lutherans) asked me if 
I felt different than when I was a Lutheran. To this I replied, 
"Well, the degree of religious fervor is roughly equal." They were 
not amused 8-)] 

Wow, two big Lionel flames in a few days, I sure feel productive 8-)
I'll try to post something with content soon.

>-Tero Sand

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: faris@sarcasm.trl.OZ.AU (Aziz Faris)
Subject: Re: noah's ark
Reply-To: a.Faris@trl.oz.au 
Organization: Telecom Research Labs, Melbourne,Australia
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 01:43:23 GMT

In article <1d3nnbINNl8e@bnsgd245.bnr.co.uk>, bocmunro@bnr.co.uk (Bruce Munro) writes:
|> Path: |> In article <91@fedfil.UUCP> news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
|> >In article <1992Oct26.101019.1@woods.ulowell.edu>, cotera@woods.ulowell.edu writes:
|> >*In article <1992Oct23.185432.1@csc.canterbury.ac.nz>, phys224@csc.canterbury.ac.nz writes:
|> >*> the whole ark idea is ludicrous.
|> >*
|> >*Why?
|> >
|> >*> why make noah build the ark?
|> >
|> >*Why not? If Noah didn't build the ark then it would have been a sign of lack of
|> >*faith in God.
|> >
|> >Huh?  You've got that backwards...  not building the ark would have been a sign
|> >of too much faith in his own swimming abilities.
|> 
|> So Ted, how did Noah, in your version of events, know that a great flood
|> was on the way in several years time?
|> 
|> -- 
|> Bruce Munro.  <B.Munro@bnr.co.uk> || ...!mcsun!uknet!bnruk!B.Munro
|> BNR Europe Ltd, Oakleigh Rd South, London N11 1HB. | Note the change
|> Phone : +44 81 945 2174 or +44 81 945 4000 x2174   | of e-mail address.
|> "There are no strangers, only friends we don't recognise" - Hank Wangford

This whole business of Noahs ark is nothing but an epic that the bilical
writers have borrowed from the ancient Sumerians who lived in Southern Iraq.
The epic dates to the 3rd milinium B.C., consult any book on ancient middle
east religions and read it. It is even discussed in the Encylopedia Britanica
on ancient Middle Eastern religions.

A.Faris
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Date: 9 Nov 92 22:45:07 GMT
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks

In article <am8wTB14w165w@kalki33>, kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
> rh@smds.com (Richard Harter) writes:
[usual and completely correct refutation deleted]
> "A typical initial condition for a model of the origin of life will
> consist of an ensemble of possible initial states, such as one of the
> thermodynamic ensembles of statistical mechanics or some simple
> combination of these....Such an ensemble can be specified by a simple
> equation or a brief set of equations." (Page 107)

  Please be real.  To model even the simplest organic reactions mathematically
is intractable.  (I assume p107 of the book you referred to earlier)

> > In actual fact, the probability of evolution of higher life forms is
> > bounded below by 0 and bounded above by 1.  Any more definite statement
> > is an exercise in intellectual fraud.
> 
> Where did you get this "actual fact"?

  Uh, basic statistics would be my guess.  The above fact is true for all
probabilities.  Or do you suggest that there are events with negative
probability (or probability greater than 1)?

 |  __L__
-|-  ___  Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub
 |  | o | kv07@iastate.edu
 |/ `---' Iowa State University
/|   ___  Math Department
 |  |___| 400 Carver Hall
 |  |___| Ames, IA  50011
 J  _____
From: David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Earth Exists?
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Nov  5 1992
Date: 05 Nov 92  08:19:10

Who: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
ID: 1992Nov2.135820.15243@linus.mitre.org
 
JM> "[ Ted Holden't theory of venus, which, in brief, super
JM> green-house violates 2nd law of thermo. because middle
JM> layers should be hotter. ]
JM> 
JM> At the risk of offending someone, have the ones debating
JM> the issue bothered to look at the thermal profile of earth?
JM> We have hot in the bottom of canyons, warm surface, colder
JM> with increasing heights, then a VERY "hot" (NOTE THAT _I_
JM> KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TEMPERATURE AND HEAT CONTENT!)
JM> thermosphere.
JM> 
JM> The profile of earth - a well researched planet - is impossible
JM> via Holden's descriptions.  I submit that earth exists."
 
"Earth exists?" Prove it! It's just the kind of lie you bullshit
uniformitarians like to foist on an ignorant populus! Everyone
knows that Earth can't possibly support life, because the Felt
Effect of Gravity is too small! (Holden number = 19 Duhhs [1].)
 
I'm the only one here who truely understands the origin issue!
None of your bullshit uniformitarian lies, Meritt! God's watching
you!
 
[1] One "Duhh" is equal to the number of brain cells destroyed
while reading your bullshit uniformitarian, er, ah, bullshit.
 
(one never quite knows how many will think i'm not kidding.)
From: robd@cherry09.cray.com (Robert Derrick)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Date: 10 Nov 92 16:15:30 GMT
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us wrote:
: 
: After all, you can read the book if you want to.
: 

How do propose we are to do this thing, Kalkster?

Telepathically?  I don't think so!

On the other hand:

Since the content of your posts are either Zero,
or entirely erroneous, to date, what kind of responses
would you expect?  Does the K Continuum actually
believe in anything, or are they simply the Cosmic
Gainsayers?

Boring, dude (dudes, dudettes, hermaph's, and neuter entities?).

Tell us something that you believe IN!
--

rob derrick				robd@cherry.cray.com
From: cust_ts@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Tero Sand)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Vertical trees through geological layers
Date: 10 Nov 92 13:46:04 GMT
Organization: University of Helsinki


Do they exist? I'm skeptical, but unfortunately my knowledge is very
limited, and I need this info to counter a Finnish creationist (not
Antti - this guy actually resembles Lionel quite a bit) who claims 
geology and physics are against evolution.

(His physics argument is a piece of cake - it revolves around the good
old 2nd law of thermodynamics argument.)
-- 
	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: rowe@lepomis.psych.upenn.edu (Mickey Rowe)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: placement of Burgess problematica (was Re: Deducing Evolution)
Summary: Wiwaxia is an annelid
Date: 9 Nov 92 23:58:09 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <1992Oct24.002546.593@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren Petrich) wrote:

>	When turned upside-down, _Hallucigenia_ was found to have a
>suspicious resemblance to an onychophoran, a rather primitive
>arthropod that resembles a caterpillar. The top tubes became legs and
>the stilt-like "legs" became spines.
>
>	I recall a proposed identification of _Opabinia_ somewhere,
>and also of _Anomalocaris_. Does anyone have anything more?

Gee, I guess nobody looked into the latest Scientific American like I
suggested... I'm crushed :-)

Apparently a close comparison of wiwaxia and a modern polychaete worm
called a sea mouse indicates that wiwaxia should be placed in the
annelidae.  In _Wonderful Life_, Gould felt that wiwaxia was another
oddball, possibly intermediate between arthropods and annelids, but
definitely neither of the two.  Guess this is another strike against
the initial diversity thesis...
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From:  (Michael Snider)
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Followup-To: talk.origins
Organization: BNR
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 16:32:53 GMT

 
> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:


> >angstroms. (See "What is Matter and What is Life" by Dr. T.D. Singh and
> >Dr. Richard L. Thompson, Bhaktivedanta Institute monograph #1, 1977)
                           ------------------------------------- 

This is the Hare Krishnas, folks.  Just another brand of fundie. Doubt the
ICR would like them much, though.

> 
> >Kalki Dasa

***** Michael Snider ********** alas, no email, so reply by post ******

Talk of fame, honor, pleasure, wealth, all are dirt compared with
affection.
                                                   Charles Darwin
Critics quarrel with other critics. With an artist, no sane man quarrels.  

                                                   George Santayana        
    
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: hyde@cs.dal.ca (Bill Hyde)
Subject: Re: Creation vs. evolution
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 17:19:47 GMT

In article <BxLw4o.Fzn@access.digex.com>, huston@access.digex.com (Herb Huston) writes:
|> In article <n0e24t@ofa123.fidonet.org> Richard.Rearden.@.914/901@f8.n10.z1.fidonet.org writes:
|> >Most will say it's a theory, but there is nothing else to dispute it.  The
|> >true
|> >Evolutionist will state that it is a fact of life.  Christian's, that small
|> >fraction of the world's population, Claim it is a lie, a false teaching,
|> >a sign of the times'.
|> 
|> Were Charles Kingsley, Henri-Edouard-Prosper Breuil, and Pierre Teilhard de
|> Chardin Christians?

	One might also ask if the Pope and the Archbishop of
	Canterbury are Christians.

	Or are Christians defined as that subset of english speakers who
	think plurals are made with apostrophes?


						Bill Hyde
Department of Oceanography
Dalhousie University,
Halifax, Nova Scotia
hyde@Ice.ATM.Dal.Ca or hyde@dalac

Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: AWESOME computer program (Populus)
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 14:40:14 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.111851.29067@city.cs> lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun) writes:
}In article <ksand-051192183202@wintermute.apple.com> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik ) writes:
}>Lionel, why don't we have any computer programs that show that
}>evolution is impossible? 
}
}Because as usual, you would choose not to believe.
}
}Example: would you like to take a ride in an Airbus
}whose computer program was modified randomly? Why
}not? After all, the theory of evolution states that
}this is how improvements are generated.

Point of fact, that IS how some are designed.  See also "genetic algorithms".
You possibly HAVE ridden in an airbus with components designed that way.


Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: lking@athena.mit.edu (Loren King)
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 20:02:34 GMT

In article <7ZD4TB3w165w@kalki33>, kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
|> weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:
|> 
|> > >Read the book.
|> > 
|> > Translation: "I'm too stupid to comprehend the least aspect of the
|> > proof, let alone that it's riddled with howlers and gaffes."
|> > 
|> > Go ahead, post the proof.
|> 
|> Read the book.

No!  Post the proof!  If this group were to swap citations and reading
lists as its sole form of exchange, it would empty pretty fast.
If the proof is elegant and you feel it so compelling, a summary shouldn't
waste too much of your time.

|> 
|> 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)            |
|>        -------------------------------------------------------


Loren King
MIT
From: cust_ts@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Tero Sand)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: AWESOME computer program (Populus)
Date: 11 Nov 92 15:59:01 GMT
Organization: University of Helsinki

In article <1992Nov11.125743.1085@city.cs> lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun) writes:
>This is more like it, the sort of random mutation I am talking
>about. Lets say the chess program is 1M (approx 1 million bytes or
>8 million bits). You randomly change a few bits. Your claim is
>that you may by chance change a variable such as `number of
>moves ahead' or `a coefficient of some sort'. Do you really
>think that the program will play better chess? I am talking
>about a _well designed_ chess program which has _already_
>been finely tuned. In evospeak you might say an organism that
>has become well adapted to its environment.
>
>1. The chances of your random bit change causing the program to
>   crash is proportional to the size of the change.
>2. The chances of your random bit change having a significant
>   effect of the performance of the program is proportional
>   to the size of the change.
>
>So, your program must continue working _and_ it must make a
>significant change _and_ the change must be beneficial.

Biological entities are not computer programs - they are *far* more
'fault-tolerant'. Changing a single base pair will most likely do
nothing - changing a gene might, but even shutting a gene off or turning
it on will most likely not produce instant death (i.e. a crash).
_Meaning_, variations will occur, and under different conditions
different variations might be useful.
Furthermore, what is 'significat'?


To paraphrase Richard Dawkins: There are an infinite number of steps between
perfection and death.

	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
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: TMakinen
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Organization: <none>
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 92 11:44:58 GMT

In article <HN5wTB11w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
>First point: The known laws of physics possess low information content.

The theory contains not much information. The solutions contain huge or
infinite amount of information. Meditate the quantum field theory to enlighten
yourself about the difference between the theory and the solutions.

>Second point: biological organisms possess high information content.

As solutions of simple laws.

Teemu Makinen
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: AWESOME computer program (Populus)
Date: 13 Nov 92 02:29:53 GMT
Followup-To: talk.origins
Organization: Apple

In article <1992Nov11.125743.1085@city.cs>, lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel
Tun) wrote:
> In article <MAGUIRE.92Nov10155811@signal.clarkson.edu> maguire@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Bill Maguire) writes:
> >Here's something you could do with this game.  Take a set of these
> >games, each with different random weights.  Have a little tournament
> >then throw out the games that did the worst.  Duplicate the remaining
> >games and modify the weights in the duplicates by a small random
> >amount.  Repeat until you get bored.  Think that final set of games is
> >any better than the first batch Lionel?
> 
> A number of people have pointed out this sort of use 
> of `randomness' in the design of a program. But please note that  
> the program has been specially designed in this way. The use of
> randomness here is very specific and very tightly controlled. It
> is being used as part of the _design_ process.

Lionel, what's the difference between deliberate randomness,
and randomness? 
Kent
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
From: cust_ts@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Tero Sand)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Date: 13 Nov 92 09:15:27 GMT
Organization: University of Helsinki

In article <uVF4TB6w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
>keithd@well.sf.ca.us (Keith Doyle) writes:
[stuff about Tierra deleted]
>Yes, we agree that if matter is somehow manipulated under the control of
>a sufficiently advanced computer program --and that necessarily means a
>computer programmer too-- then the body of a living organism can be
>formed out of simple materials. The more advanced the computer --and
>that means the more knowledgable the programmer-- the faster this can be
>accomplished. If the programmer is intelligent enough, he can write a
>program that will turn stones into bread in a nanosecond!
>
>But the best computer in the universe will do nothing without being
>programmed, and it will never be programmed unless a living person comes
>along and programs it. And of course the computer will never exist in
>the first place unless someone designs and builds it.
>
>So what is your point? That you agree with us that life was caused by an
>intelligent being? If not, then what becomes of your computer example?

A computer can also not simulate revolving and colliding galaxies
without being programmed to do so - does this mean there are no galaxies
doing that?

*Extremely* stupid argument.

	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
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: What is consciousness?
From: kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu
Date: 13 Nov 92 04:30:09 EST
Organization: Wesleyan University

In article <0mo3TB9w165w@kalki33>, kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
> onar@hsr.no (Onar Aam) writes:
> 
>> >> I see. Are trees conscious? Is a virus conscious?
>> >
>> >Yes, trees and viruses are living beings, are they not?
>> 
>> Viruses alive????? Are you sure you aren't too much into New Age, Gaja and th
>> stuff?
> 
> Yes, i'm sure.

   What characteristic of viruses makes them alive?  I'm talking
about an empirical characteristic like metabolism, not something
vague like consciousness.

Karl
------
"Find a great ideal, a great purpose, marry it, and raise a family."
					 --Negativland, "U2"
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: Bales is a liar: evidence - one case
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 13:29:54 GMT

In article <7539@tekig7.PEN.TEK.COM> bobb@tekig1.PEN.TEK.COM (Robert W Bales) writes:
}I wrote:
}>}This is a direct challenge: either prove I am a liar or stop accusing me.
}Jim Meritt responded:
}>OK.  You are a liar.  Examples have been provided.
}The only thing which could prove me a liar is an example of something which I
}said which was knowinly untrue.  

Unfortunately for you, this has been, and will be, done.

}>Why don't you back up a dozen or so of your assertions that, when challenged,
}>you dropped?  Say:
}
}I have dealt with this before.  Besides, an assertion which is not completely
}backed up is an entirely different thing than a lie.

Something incorrectly stated, which is known to be incorrect, and repeatedly
asserted, is.  You have NOT dealt with this before, unless "nah nah I didn't"
is what you classify as "delt weath".

}Jim then references a posting which he says contains a lie:
}
}For this section,
}
}>>  me
}>   Stan Friesen (I think)
}$   Jim Meritt
}
}>>  Another thing. Please don't fall into the trap of calling Creationism a
}>> THEORY. It is not. A theory, by definition, MUST be capable of enduring
}>> the scientific method: Hypothesize, Experiment, Observe, Conclude.
}>
}>Creationism is capable of enduring the scientific method, as defined here.
} ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
}
}$It is my assertion that this is a lie.
}
}To show this is a lie, Jim would have to show that is a false ststement and
}that I knew it wwas false when I wrote it.
Which is trivial.  It is shown false by demonstration. 

}But what case does he make?  He
}lists a number of question about creationism and the scientific method which
}he says I have never answered.  As I will show, I have answered them.  But
}assume, for the sake of argument, that I hadn't.  Assume that every word Jim
}says about me in the rest of the example is true.  The result -- the MOST the
}example could show -- is that the statement is unsubstaniated.  Being
}unsubstantiated does not show it to be false, so obviosly does not show that I
}know it to be false.

Since you IN THE POST ITSELF refer to a "as defined here", and since it does
not, you are either lying about the state of creationism or you are lying
about your understanding of an existing definition.  Pick one.

}Simply put, the example is incapable of showing me to be a liar.  However,
}I'll not leave it there.  I'll show that I have addressed these questions.

False.

}But since I've been criticized for too-long postings, I'll do it in another
}posting.

I'll bet.
NOT.



Newsgroups: talk.origins