HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: The Myth Of Morality
From: sbishop@desire.wright.edu
Date: 14 Apr 92 12:41:29 EST
Organization: Wright State University 

In article <1992Apr13.151915.1546@city.cs>, lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun) writes:
> In article <1992Apr12.100111.905@desire.wright.edu> sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
>>I know a woman (fundamental Christian) who told me after a discussion about
>>evolution and creation differences, that she thought there would be no
>>reason to 'act properly, lead a moral life and be a good person' if there
>>was no *proof* that God had created man.  I almost choked.  This woman
>>[... descriptions deleted ...]
>>total brats, potential jail bait... and on and on.  
>>Oh, Yes, but she was a *good* Christian, quoted the Bible constantly, went
>>to church every Sunday without fail......
> 
> In your assessment of this woman's character, are you going on her
> current position, or what is in the past?
> I would like to point out that when a person turns to God and repents of
> their sins, they are forgiven completely and God does not remember their
> past transgressions any more. I would suggest that where God has forgiven
> and forgotten it is not appropriate for anyone to dredge up the past.
> 

With this woman I am not going on past transgressions but continuing and
ongoing ones.  Her out of wedlock children are ages 10 and 5, she had an
abortion between them, she is currently on welfare, has been on it for as
long as I have known her (ten years), all the while turning down free 
job training.  As for her current position, she is living with a guy who
is an habitual drug user, who just got out of prison for being a drug 
pusher.  She has recently stated she wants another child, especially since
her youngest is now in school.  (In this state, your welfare is cut when
your youngest child is in school... the rationale is that now you can get
your tail out and get a job since you are not as needed at home.)
Oh, yes, wonderful Christian!

> 
> --
> Lionel Tun   (lionel@cs.city.ac.uk)
> Vision Group, City University, London, EC1V 0HB. 071-477 8000 x 3889
Xref: sparky talk.origins:4153 sci.bio:1727
From: news@bu.edu (News Administrator)
Newsgroups: talk.origins,sci.bio
Subject: largest and oldest organism found?
Summary: there's a fungus among us (a big f***ing fungus)
Keywords: In this weeks Nature, researchers report finding a single
Date: 7 Apr 92 01:32:27 GMT
Reply-To: colby@bu-bio.UUCP (Chris Colby)
Followup-To: talk.origins
Organization: Biology Dept., Bost

1500 years old. The fungus was found in a hardwood forest in
northern Michigan. 
	
	That's a big fungus.
From: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby)
REFERENCE
Smith, et. al., 1992, The fungus _Armillaria bulbosa_ is among
the largest and oldest living organisms, Nature 356: 428-431

Chris Colby
Newsgroups: talk.origins,talk.religion.misc
From: mmcalees@cs16.UVic.CA (Michael McAleese)
Subject: Re: Does theory of evolution affect belief in God?
Organization: The Forgotten Legions of... umm... uhh...
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 92 06:12:32 GMT

In article <1992Apr17.034814.25232@ils.nwu.edu> shafto@ils.nwu.edu (Eric Shafto) writes:
>muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
>> Another interesting twist is that there does not seem to be enough matter in
>> the universe (dark or otherwise) for the universe to be cyclic.  Thus what
>> happened the split second before the "big bang" is still a mystery.  Of
>> course I think God did it, so I don't really have a problem with it :-)
>
>I am not a physicist, but I am not sure that there has to be a second
>"before" the big bang.  If I am wrong, you should also note that
>science also does not really have a problem with a mystery.

   No, I don't think you're wrong.  As I have read, the current theory is
that time didn't exist before the big bang.  Time/Space began at the 
expansion's start, and it is meaningless to speak of the time "before" the
big bang.  Still, cosmological theories change.  They are, after all, theories,
not fact.
-- 
*     mmcalees@csr.uvic.ca (Michael McAleese) : I speak only for me...       *
  "Man can believe the impossible, but never the improbable." - Oscar Wilde
Xref: sparky talk.origins:4212 sci.skeptic:7987 talk.religion.misc:6639
From: lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Bales' Scales
Date: 14 Apr 92 16:13:00 GMT
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <y0q7iB1w164w@PDaXcess.techbook.com>, mongo@PDaXcess.techbook.com (Mongo) writes...
>PUH-LEEEZE stop relying on third-rate creationist  presenta-
>tions  of second-hand data. For your own sake Bob - you will
>be burned every time. I have looked at 'Adam and Evolution',
>and the author is guilty of Morris-like mendacious misquota-
>tion; Dr. Lippard has already  shown  you  that.  It  really
>isn't a very impressive book.

I don't believe I've posted anything here about Michael Pitman's
_Adam and Evolution_ (though I have posted about misquotations
by Henry Morris himself).

(I'm also one dissertation shy of a Ph.D.)

>Regards,
>        Max G. Webb
> 
>--
>mongo@PDaXcess.techbook.com (Mongo) (Public Access User)
>PDaXcess gives free access to news & mail. (503) 644-8135 - 1200/2400, N81  
>Send to info@techbook.com for more information.
>Public access users are <NOT> affiliated with TECHbooks.  

Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: Cold-adaption of the African Elephant
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 19:14:18 GMT

In article <1992Apr11.133133@IASTATE.EDU>, kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren
Vonroeschlaub) writes:
>   In "Mammoths, Mastadonts, and Elephants" they do spend some time talking
about
> an african elephant in the Tokyo zoo.  The idea was to compare the efects of
the
> (relatively) cold weather in Tokyo with the natural selection that caused the
> Mammoths to appear.  From what I remember, the main points were that much of
the
> ears were lost to frostbite.  There was also something about being sick, but
the
> basic idea was that if the animal had been in the wild rather than a zoo it
> would most certainly have gone kaput.
> 
>   While the morals of the zookeepers could be questioned, the inability of
the
> African Elephant to survive in the cold has strong evidence against.
> 
>                                     -Kurt
  Sorry, that should have been *ability* not inability.
                                      -Kurt
From: rsquires@cyclops.eece.unm.edu (Roger Squires)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Great paper
Date: 13 Apr 92 02:00:44 GMT
Article-I.D.: lynx.9kwj_bd
Distribution: na
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

In article <1992Apr13.001228.24829@cbnewsm.cb.att.com> mls@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (mike.siemon) writes:
>In article <6cwjm+f@lynx.unm.edu>, rsquires@cyclops.eece.unm.edu
>(Roger Squires) writes:
>
>> I did find a gross flaw in the argument, however.  They say:
>	       ??????????
>> 	The coherence of these results across different variables
>> 	measured in two cores we regard as very powerful support for
>> 	the theory. ... a result that is independent of absolute age
>> 	specifications and depends only on the assumption of constant
>> 	accumulation rates.                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> Jumps right out at you, doesn't it?  Uniformitarianism rearing its ugly
>> head once again!  Oooooo Nooooooo!
>
>Ummm.  Are your trying to say something or what?

Wow! Mr. Siemon!  Loosen your *shorts*, bud!

Your sense of humor is obviously subnormal.  My prescription is to
*run*, not walk, to rec.humor, STAT.  I was commenting on the excellence
of a paper that was recommended to me on this same newsgroup and which
to me is an excellent example of the scientific method.  That's all.

>...As in several
>others of our postings, you seem here to inhabit an intellecual limbo
>that has essentially nothing to do with the actual conduct and assumptions
>of the scientific enterprise.

Mr. Siemon, this sentence make me feel bad.
I do not understand what this sentence means, Mr. Siemon.
Please explain it to me, Mr. Siemon, and if possible cite specific
examples of my posts that demonstrate your point.
Right Now, Mr. Siemon.
Or, heck, Mr. Siemon, you could even just apologize.

I have learned quite a bit by attending this forum, listening to the
experts, reading their suggestions (I am half-way through The Voyage of the
Beagle, and a hundred pages into The Origin of Species, and
I have read just about all of the FAQs that have been made available
from other posters), I have not participated in any flame wars, 
I have never called any one names or made personal remarks, and
when I have posted on a subject I have tried to be careful about
sources.  Perhaps I have been guilty of making irrelevant posts.

Please enlighten me on what I am doing wrong, Mr. Siemon.

>Michael L. Siemon

Roger Squires
rsquires@cyclops.eece.unm.edu
From: hamilton@hydra.cs.gmr.com (William E. Hamilton CS50 CS/50)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Life without God?
Date: 16 Apr 92 19:26:38 GMT
Reply-To: hamilton@gmr.com (William E. Hamilton CS50 CS/50)
Organization: GM Research Labs, Warren, MI

In article <1992Apr16.183928.21540@ils.nwu.edu> shafto@ils.nwu.edu (Eric Shafto) writes:
>lief@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Lief Sorensen) writes:
>> Anyway, on page 96 Mr. Futuyma made a claim that I want no one to forget --
>> especially Mr. Futuyma.
>> 
>>    "The next step in the synthesis of life will be to develop RNA sequences
>>    that can produce their own replicating enzymes.  This hasn't been done yet,
>>    but biochemists have made such great progress in this direction that it's
>>    likely that simple forms of life will be synthesized in the laboratory
>>    within the next ten years."
>
>
>Hell, I'm in AI.  By our standards, Futuyma's doing extremely well :-)

Doggone, Eric, you remind me of an era in my own pilgrimage. When I was a
EE grad student at Purdue in the 60's, most of the AI work at Purdue was
done in EE and I took a few AI courses.  At that time AI was pattern 
recognition, minimum risk decision theory, perceptrons and Bernie Widrow's 
neural net-like stuff. Training was excruciatingly slow on the
computers available at that time and I decided to pursue some other area.
(I ended up in optimal control, where solutions to problems were
obtained with excruciating slowness due to the constraints on computing
power available then... :-)).

Anyway, a few years later, when I became a Christian, and discovered
that these people *still* didn't believe in evolution, I decided to
at least hear them out and my own experience with trying to design and
train self-organizing systems using some combination of random search and
maybe gradient approaches on the computers of the 60's came back to me.
I thought, "Maybe our lack of success wasn't due to the slowness 
of the computers so
much as to a fundamental flaw in the concept of self-organizing systems.
- maybe they just can't work."  

Well computers have changed, training strategies have changed, and the
focus of AI has changed, invalidating that "conclusion". Thanks for
the memory :-)

Bill Hamilton

>
>
>-- 
>*Eric Shafto             * The longer I live the more I see I am never    *
>*Institute for the       * wrong about anything, and that all the pains I *
>*    Learning Sciences   * have so humbly taken to verify my notions have *
>*Northwestern University * only wasted my time.          --G. B. Shaw     *
From: mongo@PDaXcess.techbook.com (Mongo)
Subject: Bales' Scales
Organization: Portland Public Access sponsored by TECHbooks Bookstore
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 20:11:33 GMT

Last week, Bob Bales claimed  that  noone  had  refuted  his
claims  about  why  feathers  could  not  have  evolved from
scales, which included among them the claim that scales  and
feathers  originated  from  different layers of the skin. He
had apparently missed my posting  describing  an  experiment
which  directly  refuted this claim, and showed that scales,
feathers, and mammalian fur are all subject  to  the  _same_
developmental controls.
 
Last saturday, I recieved email from Bob explaining  why  he
hadn't seen my posting and acknowledging that his 'data' and
mine were in conflict. His data was an  unreferenced  state-
ment in 'Adam and Evolution'; mine is from a classic text in
embryology, and is accompanied by photographs of the  result
of  the  experiment.  He  told  me  that  he would be at the
library this weekend to try to resolve the conflict.
 
Bob, you have had time to check your data. I would like  you
to now either back up your assertion, or retract your claim.
BUT EVEN MORE IMPORTANTLY:
 
PUH-LEEEZE stop relying on third-rate creationist  presenta-
tions  of second-hand data. For your own sake Bob - you will
be burned every time. I have looked at 'Adam and Evolution',
and the author is guilty of Morris-like mendacious misquota-
tion; Dr. Lippard has already  shown  you  that.  It  really
isn't a very impressive book.
 
Regards,
        Max G. Webb

--
mongo@PDaXcess.techbook.com (Mongo) (Public Access User)
PDaXcess gives free access to news & mail. (503) 644-8135 - 1200/2400, N81  
Send to info@techbook.com for more information.
Public access users are <NOT> affiliated with TECHbooks.
From: jloucks@uts.amdahl.com (Jim Loucks)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Darwin's Enigma
Date: 16 Apr 92 17:14:53 GMT
Distribution: world,local
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) writes:
>I suspect that there are probably few, if any, inaccuracies in Sunderland's
>transcripts. 

What I find interesting is that all but Patterson made editorial 
changes prior to making the documents available to be used in textbooks.
What did they change and why?

> I also suspect that when Sunderland represents the transcripts
>as evidence that scientists doubt evolution, or know of no transitional
>fossils, that he is misrepresenting what is actually said in the transcripts.

This may or may not be true. But with the transcripts, we have the
question then the answer, it's easy to read and understand exactly
what was said.

I haven't had any time to read more of the transcripts, but I do 
plan on reading it completely. What I hoped to accomplish with my
original post was simply to communicate that the transcripts were 
available to the public. 

-- 
Jim Loucks           jloucks@uts.amdahl.com 
{apple, pyramid, sun, uunet}!amdahl!jloucks
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: Cold-adaption of the African Elephant
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 18:31:33 GMT

  In "Mammoths, Mastadonts, and Elephants" they do spend some time talking about
an african elephant in the Tokyo zoo.  The idea was to compare the efects of the
(relatively) cold weather in Tokyo with the natural selection that caused the
Mammoths to appear.  From what I remember, the main points were that much of the
ears were lost to frostbite.  There was also something about being sick, but the
basic idea was that if the animal had been in the wild rather than a zoo it
would most certainly have gone kaput.

  While the morals of the zookeepers could be questioned, the inability of the
African Elephant to survive in the cold has strong evidence against.

                                    -Kurt
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Cold-adaption of the African Elephant
From: sbishop@desire.wright.edu
Date: 15 Apr 92 18:10:49 EST
Organization: Wright State University 

In article <2729@fedfil.UUCP>, news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
>> > So could African Elephants occupy cold regions? Did they like a number of
>> > African species formerly occupy Europe?
>> > Andrew Taylor
> 
>> I'm not sure where he got his elephants, but don't forget that Hannibal
>> crossed the Alps with them.
>  
>> Sue
> 
> You read lots of history, don't you, Sue?  All but a small handful of those
> elephants died due to the hardwhips of being hauled and winched through
> those mountains, and that handful died shortly thereafter.  Hannibal's 
> strengths were his Spainish and Numidean cavalry groups;  the elephants were
> a total non-factor.
> 
> Ted Holden
> 
> -- 
> HTE
> bear

That's right, I'd forgotten how many elephants died during the trip.  BTW,
a modern trek was done over the same route by elephants, not too very long
ago.  I seem to remember that they finally just trucked them over.

Sue
From: rsquires@cyclops.eece.unm.edu (Roger Squires)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: When will it end? (Re: evolution affect belief in God?)
Date: 9 Apr 92 02:14:28 GMT
Article-I.D.: lynx.1lrjx6m
Distribution: na
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

(Ray Ingles) writes:

>...it seems to me that
>[prayer] would count *against* traditional views of a deity.
> I mean, a being that helps out only those that are prayed for? And
>only in certain ways? If so, I might hire a few people to pray for
>me nightly...

Actually, this was something of a scandal during the middle ages, 
(one more encitement for the Reformationists) and of course
in Dante the souls in Purgatory asked for those on earth to pray for them
as a means to lessen their stay on the Mountain.  It is perhaps not quite
as bad as it sounds, if you are honest about it.  Dorothy Sayers discusses
this in the notes to her translation.

> Anyway, this is an interesting topic but not really relevant to
>talk.origins.

Agreed, crossposting can be a nuisance.  That's what kill files are for.
Perhaps I will post my Kill File Primer.

>Ray Ingles

Roger Squires
rsquires@cyclops.eece.unm.edu
From: root@devl3.UUCP (Super user)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Dishonest evolutionists
Keywords: dishonesty evolution proof
Date: 6 Apr 92 13:32:07 GMT
Organization: McKee Foods Corporation

To:  Steven Foster

Your post concerning proof misses the point:  The original poster
claimed a generic dishonesty among evolutionists.  Low challenged that
person to prove or retract his statements.  In this case, "proof" would
not refer to the scientific standard of testing a theory (the original
and still occassionally encountered usage of "proof" is "test", as in
photographic proofing-out papers), but rather to the standards used in
civil law for substantiation of a claim.  The item under discussion is
not evolution in general, but a claim of dishonesty in particular.

	You are right Dr. Elsberry.  I did miss the beginning of this
	exchange.  I did not realize that the original poster was claiming
	that all evolutionists are dishonest.  I have to agree with you that
	not all are dishonest; only those who claim that there is some kind
	of proof (not photographically related) to substantiate their claim.
	If somebody says "I want to believe in evolution just because", that
	is fine; and they are not being dishonest as far as I can tell.
	Mea culpa.

I think you owe Low an apology, and if I don't see one in the next five
days, I'll remind you on the net.

	Maybe I am misreading your intentions here, but this sounds quite a
	bit like a threat of some sort.

No big deal, just a case of not knowing the context...
^^^^^^^^^^^
	Then a backing away from hostility. ?????(:O

Wesley

-- 
SIGBLOCK:  Wesley R. Elsberry, 
Moderator of the international NEURAL_NET Echo, Sysop of
Central Neural System BBS (509-627-6267), elsberry@cse.uta.edu, P.O.
Box 1187, Richland, WA 99352, 509-627-3947 (voice), 509-375-6421 (work).
 
	->  Steven Foster					<-
	->  LAND MAIL: PO Box 2107; Collegedale, TN  37315	<-
	->  VOICE: 1-404-238-7111, ext 2695			<-
	->  UUNET: root@devl3.mckee.COM				<-
From: isaak@imagen.com (mark isaak)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: What Creationism Predicts  (was: Darwin's Enigma)
Date: 16 Apr 92 17:33:09 GMT
Organization: imagen

In article <0ebs02b=cd5v00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> jloucks@uts.amdahl.com (Jim Loucks) writes:
>Punctuated equilbria is evidence supporting a lack of transitional
>fossils, exactly what creationism predicts.

Creationism doesn't predict a mere lack of transitional fossils; it
predicts a _complete_ _absence_ of such fossils (or do you believe,
contrary to a literal interpretation of Genesis, that creation has
been occurring continuously for the last couple of billion years?).

>I've asked before, what determines the difference in the physical
>evidence, such as the fossil record, for punctuated equilibria and
>creationism?

Evolution predicts the existence of transitional fossils, but with
plenty of gaps where data haven't been found.  This fits well with
what is observed.  Punctuated equilibria attempts to explain the size
and frequency of the gaps.  Although, phrased like this, it focuses
on the gaps, it IN NO WAY takes away from the fact that transitional
fossils still exist.

Creationism, on the other hand, is based entirely on half a page of
old poetry.  It conflicts with lots of data, explains nothing, and
gets its strength mainly from the fact that many so-called religious
people are so insecure in their faith that they think their relationship
with God will fall apart if their interpretation of that half a page
is wrong.
-- 
Mark Isaak    imagen!isaak@decwrl.dec.com  or  {decwrl,sun}!imagen!isaak
	       "The color of truth is gray." - Andre Gide
From: news@fedfil.UUCP (news)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Lying (Perish the thought!)
Date: 11 Apr 92 06:19:26 GMT
Organization: HTE

In article <1992Apr8.141639.4891@ac.dal.ca>, hyde@ac.dal.ca writes:
> In article <2713@fedfil.UUCP>, news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
 
 
> > Unlike a number of the regular crew on talk.origins, I do not use the
> > word liar loosely.  
 
 
> 	Until you can show me where I have lied we will
> 	have to assume you do indeed use this word loosely.
> 	You were challenged to show this yesterday, and since
> 	then you have posted hundreds of lines, yet you have
> 	not justified your charge.  Could it be that your
> 	statement above is not entirely truthful?

Your repeated statements that there is some rationale for believing that
the sudden and total change in climate within the arctic circle just sort
of happened, i.e. no cause of anything near the magnitude of the effect
needed or anything like that...

Despite 25 years of "dumbing down" and/or whatever else is going on in
our schools, and despite the rather obvious fact that a PHD degree in your
particular field doesn't seem to mean much of anything at this point in
time, I am having an impossible time believing that you could actually
BELIEVE such a thing and are not simply parroting some sort of a party
line.

Ted Holden
HTE


-- 
HTE
bear
Newsgroups: talk.origins