HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.culture.usenet,talk.origins
Subject: Re: The difference between censorship and rudeness.
Date: 25 Aug 92 22:22:31 GMT
Followup-To: talk.origins
Organization: animal -- coelomate -- deuterostome

In article <2bYr03rX6aiM00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> jloucks@uts.amdahl.com (Jim Loucks) writes:

>Hopefully the ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny information is no 
>longer distributed by such an organization, as it is *not* true. 

Depends on what you mean. If you mean "the ontogeny/phylogeny issue
does not support the pro-choice side of the argument", then you are 
correct. Evolution is a scientific issue, abortion is a legal one. 

If you mean "phlogenetic information cannot be obtained from
examining the ontogeny of an individual", you are wrong. The
original cartoon version of ontogeny and phylogeny is (thank-
fully) dead. See Gould's book "Ontogeny and Phylogeny" for a
more recent icarnation.

>Jim Loucks           jloucks@uts.amdahl.com 

Follow-ups are directed to t.o.

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"

Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:15593 talk.origins:10498
From: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: CS provides confirmation of evolutionary predictions
Date: 31 Aug 92 21:12:56 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Followup-To: talk.origins
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: grante@aquarius.rosemount.com (Grant Edwards)

In article <1992Aug29.165306.1208@rosevax.rosemount.com>, grante@aquarius (Grant Edwards) writes:
>: > Please name a science that does NOT evince strong evidence for an
>: > ancient earth, and evolution by descent with modification over
>: > deep time.

>: Um, computer science.

>Computer Science isn't.  Science, that is.  It's math, with a little
>engineering thrown in when they want to actually accomplish something.

You're right, but nevertheless, CS has twice this past decade provided
striking confirmations of evolutionary based predictions: genetic algor-
ithms (GA) and artificial life (AL).  In both cases, an algorithmic
conclusion was conjectured based on what `belief' in evolution has
taught us.

Regarding GA, it was long known that, using evolution, life has time
and time again come up with excellent, and sometimes optimal, solutions
to the numerous difficult problems posed by hostile environments.  How?
Through mutations and genetic recombination.  So if you `believe' in
evolution, it becomes pretty obvious that this technique ought to work
in different situations other than just the ones that have happened,
and surprise surprise (not), that's exactly what CS researchers have
found.

AL has no particular applications that I know of at the moment, but it
does show that conclusions reached about complex adaptive systems, based
on evolutionary `beliefs', are on target.  Parasites, viruses, speciation,
and so on all form just as predicted.  CS type thinking about AL--which
really are just particular programs--is done by imitating biologal thought.
I have not heard of any other way to think about AL or program AL.

In both cases, a simple point can be made: if you don't believe in evo-
lution, then you believe in utterly amazing stupendous zillion-to-one
coincidences.  I mean, how could a `theory' that was only a matter of
`belief' correctly lead to successful optimization techniques?  Can
Drew or anyone else provide examples of major CS developments made
possible by theological thinking?

Slightly related is simulated annealing (SA).  This technique was inspired
by our old friend thermodynamics, not evolution per se, but I mention it
here since it provides a striking example of the power of constrained
randomness, something every last creationist is completely clueless on.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: keithd@well.sf.ca.us (Keith Doyle)
Subject: Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 03:01:18 GMT



Lou Montgomery writes:
>          If you students of this discussion are interested in discussing
>       other methods of dating such as, uranium-lead, potassium-argon,
>       radioactive half-life, halo method, radiohalos, isochron or any
>       that may be of interest to either side, simply post into this
>       newsgroup and I will respond in a scientific, non-offensive
>       manner.

Ahm, at what point in the life cycle of a human being can he be created
ex-nihlo that does not include the implication of some history?

Keith
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:15727 talk.origins:10633
From: swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Symbolic Interpretation (Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Date: 2 Sep 92 06:06:24 GMT
Reply-To: swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <1992Aug28.155544.15577@acuson.com> lawson@aldia.UUCP (Drew Lawson) writes:
|In article <2A9D3AC4.19887@ics.uci.edu> bvickers@ics.uci.edu (Brett J. Vickers) writes:
|>No, not all of science would fall apart -- only biology, genetics,
|>geology, astrophysics, anthropology, biochemistry, paleontology,
|>zoology, archaeology, psychology, biophysics, ethnography,
|>linguistics, and probably a dozen other scientific fields I am
|>not recalling.
|
|And just how would those fall apart?  Oh, I can see paleontology, but
|what about the others?

The above list is a little redundant (and it left out physics),
but there is a great deal in each of these that requires, or provides
strong support for, deep time.

Let's see, first of all, *all* of modern biology is *based* on evoutionary
theory.  In fact biology exists as a *unified* field only *because*
of evolutionary theory (before the concept of evolution what we now call
biology was about three seperate, unrelated fields, and many of the
current specialties only came about as a side effect of evolutionary
theory).  There, that takes care of biology, genetics, biochemistry,
zoology, and biophysics.

Now, as to archaeology, that has produced similar evidence to paleontology
for an old Earth, in the form of human artifacts that predate the supposed
origin of humans as described in the Bible.

Astrophysics is a bit of an understatement, all of astronomy is totally
filled with evidences of an *extremely* old universe.  The list here
is too large to cover properly, but it starts with the cosmological
red shift, and goes on through the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram and
globular cluster spectral distributions, and ...
Well, to cut a long story short, to an astronomer the idea that the
Solar System is less than about 5 billlion years old is just plain
idiotic.

|Linguistics depends on humans having evolved from primates?
|(apoligies if I picked the weakest link)

No, but it provides evidence for a deeper time scale than 6,000 years.
Based on linguistic reconstructions, there were many hundreds (at least)
of human languages as recently as 6,000 years ago, when Genesis would
require only one at that time.
Thus, linguistic data requires that *humans* have been around as such
for substantially more than 12,000 years (this is just a lower limit,
it places no upper limit).
-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!
From: skroger@zeus.calpoly.edu (Seth L. Kroger)
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 07:00:18 GMT
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo

lawson@aldia.UUCP (Drew Lawson) writes:
>Yes I do speak English, perhaps more critically than you do.
>
>There is a difference between intentionally doing something and doing
>something with intent.
>
>I can intentionally shoot a gun without intending to shoot you.  I can
>intentionally build a tower without intending you to fall off of it.

Then I guess you just don't know the definition of omniscient (having total
knowledge).  Since God would, by definition, have knowledge of the outcome,
intentionally doing something IS the same as indending the outcome.

>Drew Lawson                      If you're not part of the solution,
>lawson@acuson.com                you're part of the precipitate


|======================================================================|
| 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: Robert_Broughton@mindlink.bc.ca (Robert Broughton)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Evolutionism must be defeated!
Date: 4 Sep 92 06:40:13 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Distribution: world

> Bill Gripp writes:
> 
> Funny, my Bible says "He compasseth the day from the night" indicating
> that the earth is a sphere (round).
> 

There are at least two references in Revelations to the "four corners of the
Earth", one of them in chapter 7, verse 1. I recall a statement in Revelations
that the battle of Armageddon takes place on a _plain_ consisting of the entire
Earth, but I am unable to find this at the moment. Anyway, I suspect that the
person who wrote Revelations believed that the Earth was flat.
--
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*

Robert Broughton    Robert_Broughton@mindlink.bc.ca

"We calm and reassure. We embrace people with the message that we're
all in it together. That our leaders are infallible and that there is
nothing, absolutely nothing wrong." - Miles Drentell, _thirtysomething_
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:15269 talk.origins:10275
From: cust_ts@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Tero Sand)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!
Date: 28 Aug 92 15:01:03 GMT
Organization: University of Helsinki

In article <1992Aug27.190449.13220@acuson.com> lawson@aldia.UUCP (Drew Lawson) writes:
>In article <2A9AB280.29210@ics.uci.edu> bvickers@ics.uci.edu (Brett J. Vickers) writes:
>
>>Most reasonable opinions are based on fact; I'd like to understand
>>whether or not your opinion is reasonable.  Personally, I don't
>>think it is.  That is why I asked if you had any scientific evidence
>>to support your claim that the earth is young.  I know of plenty
>>of evidence that supports an old age of the universe and the
>>earth, but I know of none that supports the opposite conclusion.
>>If you had some, I think you would be helping your cause by
>>sharing it.
>
>
>No, I don't have and scientific evidence for this.  There are many
>other things for which I have no evidence:
>  - that my life has meaning or purpose
>  - that some actions are better than others (i.e. helping someone up
>    rather than stepping on his face)
>  - that I love my wife
>  - that a stary summer night is beautiful

However: Science has no evidence
	- that your life has no purpose
	- that some actions (as you mention) are better OR worse than
	  others
	- that you don't love your wife
	- that a starry night is not beautiful

In other words, they are not scientific issues.
Please think about your examples before stating them.
-- 
-Tero Sand
  EMail: cust_ts@cc.helsinki.fi     Snail mail: Auroran Sairaala os. 6-1
  (if that doesn't work, try                    Nordenskioldinkatu 20
   cust_ts@kruuna.helsinki.fi)                  00250 Helsinki 25, Finland
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:15936 talk.origins:10874
From: sichase@csa3.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Logic and God (was: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Date: 4 Sep 92 22:28:27 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
Distribution: na
Reply-To: sichase@csa3.lbl.gov
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.198
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   

In article <2AA7BE4E.471D@tct.com>, chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg) writes...
> 
>Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe in a firey hell, and neither do we
>resort to argumentation by volume.

Jehovah's Witnesses would never do anything that Chip Salzenberg wouldn't
do.  NOT!

-Scott
--------------------
Scott I. Chase			"The question seems to be of such a character
SICHASE@CSA2.LBL.GOV		that if I should come to life after my death
				and some mathematician were to tell me that it
				had been definitely settled, I think I would
				immediately drop dead again."      - Vandiver
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:15843 talk.origins:10770
From: lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Symbolic Interpretation (Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Date: 3 Sep 92 15:52:46 GMT
Organization: City University, London

In article <973@tdat.teradata.COM> swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen) writes:
>|Linguistics depends on humans having evolved from primates?
>|(apoligies if I picked the weakest link)
>
>No, but it provides evidence for a deeper time scale than 6,000 years.
>Based on linguistic reconstructions, there were many hundreds (at least)
>of human languages as recently as 6,000 years ago, when Genesis would
>require only one at that time.
>Thus, linguistic data requires that *humans* have been around as such
>for substantially more than 12,000 years (this is just a lower limit,
>it places no upper limit).

This is another illustration of the _assumptions_ that evolutionists
start from, that of uniformity. What if at some point within the
last 6,000 years human language suddenly and inexplicably exploded
from one to hundreds instantaneously?
Do these linguistic reconstructions discount the confusion of 
languages at the Tower of Babel?

--
Lionel Tun   (lionel@cs.city.ac.uk)
Vision Group, City University, London, EC1V 0HB. 071-477 8000 x 3889
From: biow@cs.umd.edu (chris biow)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Transactional Analysis
Keywords: Psychology, Transactional Analysis
Date: 26 Aug 92 18:37:52 GMT
Organization: U of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Science, Coll. Pk., MD 20742

In article <1992Aug25.191211.9326@m.cs.uiuc.edu> mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu writes:

>To the extent that TA "works" it is probably due to the fact that 
>Freud's theoretical work, while out of touch with what is now known, 
>was hardly slap-dash or incompetant.

Robert, I wouldn't even give either theory that much credit. Consider
the following:

-To the extent that gelatine capsules work it is probably due to the fact that
-Smith's gelatine capsule theory, while out of touch with what is now 
-known...

And yes, gelatine capsules do "work" on cancer, impotence, schitzophrenia,
or what-have-you. All placebos work equally well. Placebos accompanied
by mumbo-jumbo or extensive "talking to the patient" work even better.

From some readings of skeptical books and publications, it seems
that much of Freud's work was quite incompetent. The term "quackery" 
comes to mind. In no sense did the man use anything like a scientific
method. All that can be said is that his methods were an improvement
on much that came before.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 22:27:05 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.192605.13417@acuson.com>, lawson@acuson.com (Drew Lawson)
writes:
> Discernment requires, of course, a basis or background to judge
> against.  If you have no value system, you cannot choose between
> options.  My value system is based on scripture, personal revalation
> (you knew it would be there, didn't you) and prophetic wisdom.

  I don't quite see this.  Value judgments are not made in science.  What value
judgment is involved in deciding whether 1+1=2 or not?  What value judgment is
being made in examing the evidence for evolution?

  You seem to be attacking the scientific method.

> Some have a value system based on physical proof and consensus on
> interpretation.

  Can you give a different interpretation that covers all the physical evidence?
It isn't concensus of interpretation: any scientist will seriously consider any
interpretation that fits with all the known evidence.  No scientist will
seriously consider any interpretation that does not explain all known evidence.

> Tou can only judge within the system you accept.

  This seems to be a direct dismissal of the scientific method.  I am a firm
believer in the "don't attack a system unless you have something better" camp. 
Do you have a different system which can be explained in a procedural and
explicit manner?

 |  __L__   *******************************
-|-  ___    * Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub   *
 |  | o |   * kv07@iastate.edu            *
 |/ `---'   * Iowa State University       *
/|   ___    * Math Department             *
 |  |___|   * 400 Carver Hall             *
 |  |___|   * Ames, IA  50011             *
 J  _____   *******************************
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:15827 talk.origins:10739
From: swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!
Date: 25 Aug 92 19:45:18 GMT
Reply-To: swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <1992Aug21.104236@IASTATE.EDU> danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock) writes:
|...  Tell you what, next time a truck makes an illeagle left turn
|through you just view it as an immaterial data structure and pay someone else
|to tell us how well it works.  The truck and evolution are equally real.
|
|   Evolution is grounded in reality very firmly as are data structures.
|Incorrect data structures can kill; it is mere bigotry on your part as 
|a material being to declare them non-existant upon your whim. 

Indeed, as Ernst Mayr has pointed out (*) living things are fundamentally
based on *data* *structures*, called 'genes'.  (Hmm, well, yes those
data structures are instantiated in a material form - DNA, but the same
is true of computer data structures - magnetic domains).

Data structures are at the very core of our existance.

(*) try reading "Towards a New Philosophy of Biology" by Ernst Mayr.


-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:15842 talk.origins:10765
From: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Logic and God (was: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Date: 3 Sep 92 15:55:51 GMT
Article-I.D.: bu.95286
Followup-To: talk.origins
Organization: animal -- coelomate -- deuterostome

In article <btd.715375702@pv7413.vincent.iastate.edu> btd@iastate.edu (Benjamin T Dehner) writes:

>	Evolution is probably classified as a historical science...

_Some_ fields of evolutionary biology are historical in that they try
to uncover what did happen. But, other fields study the process as
it occurs and attempt to build a basic theory describing changes
in the gene pool (evolution) and how they are brought about (for ex.
by selection, mutation, drift, recombination and gene flow).
Evolution is on ongoing process that can be studied here and now.

>Benjamin T. Dehner    Dept. of Physics and Astronomy 

Follow-ups to t.o.

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: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: Evolutionism must be defeated!
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 20:36:07 GMT

In article <Bts2FL.E98@world.std.com>, believer@world.std.com (Frank G Sesco)
writes:
> How can I become involved in the fight to remove this dangerous
> Pagan teaching from our schools? The fight against evolutionism
> must be an essential component of the fight for our families and
> this country.
> 
> We must work to rid the world of Communism, Secular Humanism,
> Homosexualism, Evolutionism, and Atheism. All pose a grave threat
> to our faith and therefore our very existance.

  I have already posted a suspicion (?) that Vern is really a Creationist trying
to make Evolution look bad.  I am now tempted to say (despite the awkward
user-id) you are trying to make Christianity look bad.

  I do not think it would have been possible to post a more rediculous,
content-free post.  (Of course, if it can be done Ted Holden will do it).

  I appeal to any who might have read this and been disgusted that this does not
represent Christianity as presented in the Bible in any way except through some
deranged fear-mongering filter.

 |  __L__   *******************************
-|-  ___    * Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub   *
 |  | o |   * kv07@iastate.edu            *
 |/ `---'   * Iowa State University       *
/|   ___    * Math Department             *
 |  |___|   * 400 Carver Hall             *
 |  |___|   * Ames, IA  50011             *
 J  _____   *******************************
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:15756 talk.origins:10670
From: gwangung@byron.u.washington.edu (Roger Tang)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Linguistics and evolution
Date: 2 Sep 92 18:07:35 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Sep2.180735.11356
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

In article <1293@tecsun1.etl.army.mil> riggs@descartes.tec.army.mil (Bill Riggs) writes:
>In article <87705@netnews.upenn.edu> weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:
>>In article <1287@tecsun1.etl.army.mil>, riggs@descartes (Bill Riggs) writes:
>>>	It would help most of all if Matt translated this blurb into
>>>English.

	Can't be done. You HAVE to use words of more than one syllable.

>>If you can't even comprehend something as basic as what I wrote, and
>>have no idea what I'm alluding to, you certainly are in no position to
>>comment about the evidence for evolution.
>>Is the word "dendogram" even part of your vocabulary?
>
>	Nope.

	Ummm...three syllables.  Didn't think so.

-- 
	"I got into theatre originally to pick up girls. Unfortunately, all I
found were women..."
e-mail:  gwangung@milton.u.washington.edu
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:15762 talk.origins:10681