HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ddeocamp@pearl.tufts.edu (DANIEL M. DEOCAMPO)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Re: Notch another one up for the Greennazis
Summary: As if Greenpeace were revolutionaries...
Date: 17 Nov 92 13:33:00 GMT
Organization: Tufts University - Medford, MA
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1e923iINN7e2@gap.caltech.edu>, carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes...
>In article <1992Nov16.192427.931@iti.org>, aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>>I still want to know where was Greenpeace when Saddam was dumping oil in
>>the Gulf and setting the fields on fire?
> 
>They were on the sidelines asserting that if Saddam did that, the fault would
>be entirely that of the United States.
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL
> 

Come on, don't you think that's : 1) misrepresenting and unjustifiably
maligning Greenpeace, 2) oversimplifying the issues?  For that matter, America
cannot claim innocence regarding the atrocities committed by Saddam.

Daniel Deocampo                          Undergrad (I have an excuse for    
ddeocamp@pearl.tufts.edu                            any silly comments.)
                                         Department of Geology
---------------------|                   Environmental Studies Program
"Be gneiss to me,    |                   Tufts University
 I'm going through   |
 a lot of schist."   |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: rowe@pender.ee.upenn.edu (Mickey Rowe)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Date: 20 Nov 92 23:50:15 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <P0kFuB12w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
     writes:

>Yes, this seems fair to say, with the added assertion that not only is
>there no plausible mechanism for abiogenesis, 

I think I can safely jump on Dan's bandwagon and say to you Kalki...
How can you understand the point that you make above and still not
recognize that it invalidates *any* claims about the probability of
abiogenesis? 

>but there is no
>observational evidence either. 

This of course is false.  What evidence we have isn't terribly
compelling, but to say that there is none is putting your case a mite
too strongly.

>No one has ever seen life arising from
>non-living matter.

Nor is anyone here proposing that anyone ever should have, are they?
I wish you could get Matthew's supernova point through your heads.

>To us the origin of life is also a scientific problem, but we propose
>that it is not reducible under any of the current mechanistic or
>materialistic concepts of science. The origin of life, we claim, will
>not be solved until science enlarges its paradigm to include nonphysical
>but nevertheless real entities, including the soul, the Supersoul and
>consciousness.

Then why is it that when I asked you *how* we could do this, you
didn't respond?  You've been frothing at the mouth about the things
scientists aren't willing to do, but I've eagerly asked for your
guidance as to how I could go about doing it and you give me nothing
in return.  I'm left to conclude that you truly have nothing to offer.
Please demonstrate that my conclusion is false or just go away.  

>Our hypothesis (that God is the origin of life) is not accepted by
>materialistic science, which claims that the existence of God is not
>within the realm of observation. This is false. 

In what way has it been falsified?

>God can, and has been, observed. 

Has It been observed in some fashion that science could take notice
of? 

>When we describe specific methods for observing the existence
>of God, materialistic science refuses to adopt those methods, 

And yet again I ask WHAT METHODS?

>thereby never succeeds in observing God. Not caring to admit that it has
>not tried our methods

And yet again I ask WHAT METHODS?

> materialistic science instead claims that we are
>simply making unfalsifiable assertions about the existence of a
>nonmaterial entity. We therefore have no other choice than to conclude
>that materialistic science has made up its mind that it does not want
>God involved in its program,

You have plenty of other choice IMHO.  You could actually say
something direct instead of talking about what you claim to have said
before or will say in the future.

>Kalki Dasa

Mickey Rowe     (rowe@pender.ee.upenn.edu)
From: news@fedfil.UUCP (news)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Let's cut the crap, Ted
Date: 17 Nov 92 00:47:58 GMT
Organization: HTE

In article <1992Nov15.081014.21876@klaava.Helsinki.FI>, cust_ts@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Tero Sand) writes:

> There are zillions of flaws in your/Velikovsky's/whoever's 'theory', but
> let's concentrate on two.
 
> 1. How did Earth stay in one piece inside the Roche limit?
> 2. How did life survive Earth's journey to its present orbit?

There's a really simple answer to both questions, and it's the same answer:

I haven't got the slightest idea.


> Just answer these two questions.
> 	Tero Sand

What we DO know is that the felt effect of gravity was heavily attenuated
in antediluvian times, as I have heavily documented on t.o, that this is 
consistent with the notion of a former solar system of roughly the nature
which I have described, that Velikovsky, Talbott, Cardona, and others have
heavily documented the descriptions of this former system which exist in
antique literature and on pyramid walls etc.  Aside from Talbott's Saturn
Myth, there are numerous papers of Cardona's from Aeon and Kronos.


 


-- 
Ted Holden
HTE
From: lippard@violet.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: In case Bales has convinced you of his honesty...
Date: 18 Nov 92 03:39:00 GMT
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <7630@tekig7.PEN.TEK.COM>, bobb@tekig1.PEN.TEK.COM (Robert W Bales) writes...
> 
>Reality check III:
> 
>In previous postings, Jim Meritt has implied that he would view agreement with
>as providing evidence for my side.  But his subject here implies that anyone
>who agrees with me is wrongly convinced.  Which is it?
> 
>Jim Meritt writes:
> 
>>The first on the list is a question that has been asked in talk.origins
>>MANY times other than just as part of this list.  I have never seen
>>an answer.  Has anyone?

I think that in this case, Meritt's posting has better qualifications for
being a lie than Bales'.  I, playing devil's advocate, answered these
questions on behalf of creationists.  I know Meritt saw my replies, because
they prompted one further exchange between us.
   My position is that there *are* parts of creationism which are
scientific.  That is, there are creationists who have put forth theories
about one thing or another which are scientifically testable.  In most
cases, the tests have been done and the theories have been falsified.
Having one's theories falsified does NOT make one nonscientific.  The
history of science is the history of failed theories.
   (Some theories of creationism which have been falsified are flood geology
and the vapor canopy theory.)

>The first on the list is the contention that creation is scientific.  This
>is what Jim recently made his "one case" about.  I responded to this with
>two articles, the second of which contained answers to the questions from
>previous postings.  I know that Jim saw them because he responded to them.
> 
>For instance, the first question is:
> 
>               What observations support creationism?
> 
>I said that observations of the fossil record support creationism.  This is an
>answer.  Similarly, I gave specific answers to the other questions.
> 
>When Jim uses "answer," he apparently means "an answer that Jim agrees with."
>This, of course, is a bogus definition.  In terms of whether I have answered
>the above question, "answer" means "observations which Bob thinks support
>creationism."  It is a matter of open record in this group that I have given
>such observations in a posting -- one to which Jim responded.  Thus, his
>statement thathe has seen no answers to the questions, while it may be true
>according to his strange definition of "answer." is objectively false.

I agree with this paragraph.

This whole exchange seems to me to be rather pointless.

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: Probability of Evolution
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 92 05:58:08 EST
Reply-To: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Organization: Kalki's Infoline BBS, Aiken, SC, USA

varney@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (Al Varney) writes:

>    Have you also calculated the probability of the watchmaker being
> formed without a designer, without guidance?  If not, does that mean
> someone/something designed the watchmaker?  And would that designer
> be even more complex than the watchmaker?  What is the probability
> of your EXACT God coming into existence without a designer?
> 
>    Or are these areas we're not allowed to ponder/investigate?

Indeed, ponder it.

Sincerely,
Kalki "with scientists like these, who needs the ICR" 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: A SOLUTION!!! ... to the Collective Action Problem re Kalki's Bo
Keywords: diminishing unit cost
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 92 06:27:35 EST
Reply-To: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Organization: Kalki's Infoline BBS, Aiken, SC, USA

lking@athena.mit.edu (Loren King) writes:

> How about ten of us offer $1 ... we all mail it to one
> person (volunteer, hopefully), and that person buys the
> book which Kalki is screaming at us to read, and then
> summarizes it for the rest of us?
> 
> I'm willing to chip in a buck or two, but I don't think I'm
> a good choice for a reviewer ... in fact, I say we
> let Kalki choose which of us HE wants the book reviewed
> by, just to make it fair.

You guys are about the most impatient lot i've ever seen! Why not just
hold your water until I get permission from Dr. Thompson to post his
book over the net verbatim? He's in Europe until Nov. 30, but I am 99%
sure he will say yes.

Sincerely,
Kalki "What mutation causes Darwin's Syndrome?" 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: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: "Bales is lying" thread
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 13:46:43 GMT

In article <n0ea5t@ofa123.fidonet.org> David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org writes:
}JM> "On the other hand, the use of multiple different parts working
}JM> together to accomplish a function is a hallmark of design.

Error.  Not I.  I did not say, nor would I EVER say, anything so silly.

As evidence against such an absurd position:
Throw a handful of sand on a sheet of paper.  The resulting pattern could not be termed
"designed" (except by the most adamant creationist).  Its function is to illumine you
on the results of ballistics, atmospheric effects, and random distribution.  Hence,
the multiple different parts (each a grain of sand) is working together to accomplish
a function (heck, even "be pretty" is a function) without being designed.  Note: the
PATTERN is what is doing the function, not the paper, not even the individual grains
of sand.
From: bobb@tekig1.PEN.TEK.COM (Robert W Bales)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: CWACKers and Complexity (bits of information definition)
Date: 18 Nov 92 02:25:50 GMT


Trygve Lode writes:

>Gange's argument rests on at least two fatal flaws.  The first, and less
>serious one, is the implicit assumption that self-replicating molecules
>are unique--that "1500 bits" of information that specify a self-replicating
>molecule are the only "1500 bits" that would do so.

>While not every "1500 bit" molecule is going to be self-replicating, quite a
>large number of them will be, which makes the odds of creating such a
>molecule even by random
>chance in a single experiment much better than 1 in 2^1500.

How do we know this?  And what, in terms of percentages, is "quite a large
number?"

   Bob Bales
   Tektronix, Inc.

I help Tektronix make their instruments. They don't help me make my opinions.
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: Thomas Bjorkman <Thomas_Bjorkman@cornell.edu>
Subject: Re: Bad design and vestigial organs
X-Xxdate: Mon, 23 Nov 92 12: 54:10 GMT
Nntp-Posting-User: tnb1@cornell.edu
Organization: Cornell University
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d7
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 17:50:36 GMT

In article <YMF=z4-@engin.umich.edu> Ray Ingles, ingles@engin.umich.edu
writes:
>	Some non-flowering angiosperms, like the grasses, apparently
>have vestigial flower parts.

Grasses are very much flowering plants, and they have the important parts
(the sex organs) fully developed.  Many self- or wind pollinated plants
do not make petals or sepals (decorations) on their flowers.  They all
have the primordia though, some just develop more than others.
From: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: What is consciousness?
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 92 04:46:47 EST
Reply-To: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Organization: Kalki's Infoline BBS, Aiken, SC, USA

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

> }> ...I've finished _The Origins of
> }> Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind_, and I still
> }> think it's gibberish.)
> }
> }I agree that "...Bicameral..." is jibberish. There is a strange tendency
> }among some writers to try to that what people say they see is not really
> }what they are seeing. Thus this author tried to explain the reported
> }visitations by demigods in ancient times as, in effect, hallucinations
> }caused by the wiring in the brain! (It's been a while since I read the
> }book, but I think that was the general idea).
> 
> That's close enough for net.work.  However, let's analyze a key
> statement of yours here: "There is a strange tendency among some
> writers to try to that what people say they see is not really what
> they are seeing."  If you really think the tendency claim that what
> people think they perceive is not what they actually perceive is
> "strange", then you are either blind or ignorant to so much of human
> psychology as to make any further conversation with you on the topic
> pointless.  I invite you to retract the statement or let the
> conversatoin end here.

Then let the conversation end here.

> By the way, if you're interested I can dig up a reference for you from
> a paper that was written by Chrisoph Koch (among others) where they
> were trying to determine if a person is truly unconscious during
> anesthesia.  This is one of my all time favorite quotes from a peer
> reviewed paper.  (From memory) "Consciousness is a pre-scientific term
> with multiple and inconsistent meanings."

Matter is unconscious, the soul is always conscious. When the sense
organs of an embodied soul are anesthetized, the soul may not be able to
manifest its consciousness to those around it, but it is still
conscious.

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)            |
       -------------------------------------------------------
From: waynebro@juliet.caltech.edu (Broughton, Wayne Jeremy)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Creation vs. evolution
Date: 18 Nov 1992 22:56 PST
Organization: California Institute of Technology
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: juliet.caltech.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <RLK.92Nov11180937@underprize.think.com>, rlk@underprize.think.com (Robert Krawitz) writes...
> 
>2) The creation theory was first rejected by people who had originally
>been creationists themselves.  I'm referring to Buckland, Sedgwick,
>Agassiz, and such.  In fact, Sedgwick himself publicly recanted his
>creation theory before the Royal Academy of Sciences in London (or some
>such body; the reference is from Philip E. Kitcher's book whose title I
>don't remember off the top of my head).  Evolution (Darwin's book) only
> 
It is titled "Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism" (I am afraid
I don't have any other bibliographical info at hand).  I recommend it as 
an excellent book for those with as little biological knowledge as I had
(and as Mr. Reardon gives every indication of having).  It begins with a
lucid introduction of evolutionary biology, and then considers C'nist 
objections in a hierarchical (or nested? branching? :-) ) fashion, 
beginning with objections against science generally, then claims that evo 
bio is not scientific, that evo contradicts scientific laws, and that
evo contradicts specific data and observations.  It then launches a
scathing attack on what passes as C'nist theory, and concludes by
considering the political nature of C'nism and the supposed sociological
implications of evo.  Kitcher is a philosopher of science rather than
a scientist, so the book is not too technical scientifically but still
requires concentration and thoughtful reading.

I found this book in our campus library and suspect it is generally
available (though now out of print).  Mr. Reardon, I strongly suggest
you read this book, with as open a mind as you can muster. 

Regards,

Wayne. 
**********************************************************************

Wayne J. Broughton                 Take the road less travelled by.  
waynebro@juliet.caltech.edu    
Department of Mathematics,
Caltech, Pasadena, CA  91125

Caltech has no idea what my opinions are;  
they think I'm working right now...
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: More (verbal) Flooding of "the" flood
From: kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu
Date: 17 Nov 92 08:56:58 EST
Organization: Wesleyan University

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:
>
>     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.

   Actually, there wasn't that long; if you look carefully at the 
numbers and when people were born, you'll find that Methuselah didn't
die until the year before the Flood.  I added it up a while ago, it 
came out to something like 1600 years between Adam and the Flood 
(which presumably is what Ussher got, since that part is easy; it's
Flood -> Exodus and Exodus -> present that get tricky).

Karl
------
"Find a great ideal, a great purpose, marry it, and raise a family."
					 --Negativland, "U2"
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: robd@cherry09.cray.com (Robert Derrick)
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: 16 Nov 92 13:12:11 CST

kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us wrote:
: 
: And who, in this analogy, is the programmer?

The Tao is the programmer.

: 
: Where did the code come from, if there is no programmer?

All things flow from the Tao.

	Heaven and Earth last forever.  Why?
	They are unborn,
	So ever living..
  and...
	Stand before it and there is no beginning.
	Follow it and there is no end.
	Stay with the ancient Tao,
	Move with the present.
				[from the Tao Te Ching]
	
How like Hawking's belief that there is no boundary to time.

: I don't know, prabhu, your statements seem to be getting less and less
: scientific.

Are they?  Is it so?  Were yours?  Ever?

--

rob derrick				robd@cherry.cray.com
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: mmeyer@m2.dseg.ti.com (Mark Meyer)
Subject: Re: Theory of Creation and Proof
Organization: TI DSEG, Spring Creek, Plano, Tx.
	<1992Nov17.171715.15113@nntpserver.chevron.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 20:32:53 GMT

In article <1992Nov17.171715.15113@nntpserver.chevron.com> jviv@usmi01.midland.chevron.com (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. :-)

-- 
Mark Meyer                                               | mmeyer@dseg.ti.com |
Texas Instruments, Inc.                                  +--------------------+
Every day, Jerry Junkins is grateful that I don't speak for TI.
                          "Why do I feel as if I've just caused a train wreck?"
From: lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Laying a trap
Keywords: Computer program, random, mutation, chess
Date: 20 Nov 92 14:07:44 GMT
Organization: City University, London

In article <1992Nov19.215001.3750@cc.uow.edu.au> plumpton@wampyr.cc.uow.edu.au (David Plumpton) writes:
>lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun) writes:
>>1
>>Lets say there is a computer program which `knows' the
>>legal moves of chess - lets call it ChessMover.
>>ChessMover plays very poor chess because its moves are
>>made at random. But it does play very fast. ChessMover
>>is small, compact and extremely efficient. But it plays
>>bad chess because it has not been designed with any
>>chess playing algorithms at all.
>
>>Would it be possible to subject ChessMover to random
>>mutations, so that eventually you evolve ChessPlayer,
>>a chess program which plays very well, say at master
>>level?
>
>This is a poor analogy for evolution or abiogenesis (which ever one you're
>attempting to analyse here).

Evolution, as the program already exists.

>A chess program does not reproduce.
>No form of natural selection is applied to it.

Natural selection: You can have the programs play against
each other automatically.
Reproduction: You can bias your selection for the next 
generation towards winners.


--
Lionel Tun   (lionel@cs.city.ac.uk)
Vision Group, City University, London, EC1V 0HB. 071-477 8000 x 3889
From: David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: One True Creationism
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Nov 17 1992
Date: 19 Nov 92  16:19:38

who: cjhs@minster.york.ac.uk (Chris Ho-Stuart)
ID: 721986242.6735@minster.york.ac.uk
 
CH-S> "Another suggestion.
CH-S> 
CH-S> Perhaps Lionel Tun or Bob Bales would be willing to
CH-S> comment on Kalki?
CH-S> 
CH-S> I am presuming Lionel and Bob would like to see the
CH-S> theory of creationism made available to students for
CH-S> their consideration. Would Kalki be an acceptable teacher
CH-S> of the theory of creationism?
 
Looks like you're trying to start some trouble (SMILE!).
 
Of course (!) Kali will not be allowed to teach innocent
CHRISTIAN children his "Theory of Creationism," because it
will include THE +WRONG+ GOD.
 
CH-S> Felicitations -- Chris Ho-Stuart
 

--- Squish v1.01