HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: Supernaturalistic Science
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 00:04:44 GMT

In article <1993Jan26.214137.14540@s1.gov>, lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
writes:
>In article <162510d23@ofa123.fidonet.org> Dr.Pepper@f241.n103.z1.fidonet.org
writes:
>: From: russpj@microsoft.com (Russ Paul-Jones)
> 
>: the most.  For example, I am not aware of an effort to establish
>: that both the strong nuclear force and gravity are personal
>: expressions of God's will.
>>
>>I have. In a creationist pamplet i read a long time ago there was a quote from
>>the Bible that says that God "...holds all things together". This was
>>proferred as the final answer to the investigations of nuclear physics.
> 
> 	That would _have_ to be Jack Chick's pamphlet _That? Big Daddy?_
> 
> 	Does anyone else around here find Jack Chick's pamphlets very
> entertaining?

  His creationist stuf is the usual dreck.

  His raging against the Catholic Church (and insistance that all Bible
translations but the KJ are the work of Satan) are about as amusing as old KKK
tracts.

  The other stuff varies from mildly amusing to sickening.

  All in all, I would not want him representing me in any situation.

 |  __L__
-|-  ___  Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub
 |  | o | kv07@iastate.edu
 |/ `---' Iowa State University
/|   ___  Math Department
 |  |___| 400 Carver Hall
 |  |___| Ames, IA  50011
 J  _____
From: Dr.Pepper@f241.n103.z1.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Evolution implied by the Bible
Date: 26 Jan 93 05:06:00 GMT
X-Sender: newtout 0.06 Jan  3 1993


 > From: cotera@woods.ulowell.edu
 > Message-ID: <1993Jan25.144819.1@woods.ulowell.edu>

 >> Now please state the theory of creationism.

 > I think I've discovered why no one wants to put the theory of
 > Creationism on
 > t.o.  I keep seeing in the Creation Research Science Quarterly
 > ads asking
 > people to send money so that a model can be developed.  This is
 > no small task.
 > CRS has only been around for 30 years or so, and they have to
 > review all the scientific data.

Are you saying there *is* no theory? What is "Creation Science" then? It's a
strange science that has no theory.

 > However here is the Theory of Creationism in a nutshell: God
 > created the universe.

Here is my rebuttle: No evidence.

+--------------------------+--------------------------------------+
| 10                    2  | Garden Grove Institute of Technology |
|        DR PEPPER         | Community Outreach Center            |
|                       4  |                                      |
+--------------------------+ Snail Addr: Unit #1, 7872 Trask      |
| Clinton *can* be our     |             Westminster, Ca  92683   |
| Santa Claus-- *if* we    | Modem:      714-894-7039             |
| are willing to be the    | Fidonet:    1:103/241                |
| elves and the reindeer.  | Candynet:   42:1001/1                |
|                          | Internet:   Dr.Pepper@f241.n103.z1   |
|                          |              .fidonet.org            |
+--------------------------+--------------------------------------+

---
From: isaak@aurora.com (Mark Isaak)
Subject: Re: Who is Christian - a simple answer
Summary: Lewis's argument is worthless.
Reply-To: isaak@aurora.com (Mark Isaak)
Organization: The Aurora Group
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 93 15:27:37 GMT

In article <1jpnkmINN272@dmsoproto.ida.org> rlg@omni (Randy garrett) writes:
>It seems to me that C.S. Lewis's Lord, Liar,
>or Lunatic argument holds a lot of logical validity:  
[paraphrased: Jesus said he was divine.  If he wasn't he was either
a liar or a lunatic; either way, we shouldn't listen to his teachings.]

The argument has no logical validity whatsoever.  If someone whom
you knew to be a pathological liar or a lunatic told you that most
dogs have four legs, would that call into question the validity of
the claim that dogs do have four legs?

The authority of the person making a claim can be a useful first
approximation of the validity of the claim, but ultimately every
claim must stand or fall on its own.

(And Lewis apparently knows nothing about insanity.  "Lunatics" are
usually quite rational about many subjects, and sometimes they're
altogether more rational than so-called normal people.)

And, to add relevance to talk.origins, I must point out that
religion and science are orthogonal subjects.  Christianity, not to
mention religion as a whole, has no more to do with evolution than
with scuba diving.
-- 
Mark Isaak           "Every generation thinks it has the answers, and every
isaak@aurora.com      generation is humbled by nature." - Philip Lubin
From: Dr.Pepper@f241.n103.z1.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Merritt
X-Sender: newtout 0.06 Jan  3 1993
Date: 25 Jan 93  12:47:00

To Ted Holden:

Only a morally challenged blackguard suffering the reduced felt effect of
intellectual coherence, such as yourself, could fail to see that when James
Merritt addresses you he is speaking for me as well. Now go pour some penzoil 
into your coffee, it's really nutritious!

+--------------------------+--------------------------------------+
| 10                    2  | Garden Grove Institute of Technology |
|        DR PEPPER         | Community Outreach Center            |
|                       4  |                                      |
+--------------------------+ Snail Addr: Unit #1, 7872 Trask      |
| Happy days are here      |             Westminster, Ca  92683   |
| again / The skies above  | Modem:      714-894-7039             |
| are clear again / So     | Fidonet:    1:103/241                |
| fill your cup with cheer | Candynet:   42:1001/1                |
| again / Happy days are   | Internet:   Dr.Pepper@f241.n103.z1   |
| here again!              |              .fidonet.org            |
+--------------------------+--------------------------------------+

---
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu (scharle)
Subject: Philosophy of Pierre Grasse
Reply-To: scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu (scharle)
Organization: Univ. of Notre Dame
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 18:03:41 GMT

    As the person who brought up the philosophy of Grasse does not seem
about to have anything more to say, I was wondering whether anyone else
is interested.  I just started reading

    Grasse, Pierre Paul
    Evolution of living organisms: evidence for a new theory of
            transformation.  Academic Press, 1977
            (translation of)
    L'evolution du vivant; materiaux pour une nouvelle theorie
            transformiste. A. Michel, 1973


-- 
Tom Scharle                |scharle@irishmvs(Bitnet)
Room G003 Computing Center |scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu(Internet)
University of Notre Dame  Notre Dame, IN 46556-0539 USA
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: crosby@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Matthew Crosby)
Subject: Re: Evolutionism as Cultural Imperialism
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 01:07:10 GMT

In article <1764@tdat.teradata.COM> swf@tools3teradata.com (Stan Friesen) writes:
>In article <1993Jan14.172102.5331@linus.mitre.org>, m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
>|> }: If this poll really holds water I am highly alarmed as to the state of
>|> }: US basic scientific education. 
>|> }	So are we!
>|> 
>|> That is why (I suspect) that the upcoming President has enrolled his daughter
>|> in a private school...
>
>Yep, it is why, if I ever have any children, they will *not* be sent to public
>schools (in the U.S. sense of 'public').

Well, to be fair, I recently graduated from a public school, and I feel that
I haven't been at all disadvanteged.  True, the curruculum was kind of
sophomoric, but I came to the conclusion that most of the students did not want
to learn--my teachers where mostly excellent, dedicated people who tried hard,
but it was all they could do to get the students to do the work, and learn
the easy stuff they where teaching.  Quite frankly, 90% of the students couldn't
give a stuff when the earth was created, all the wanted was to make a lot of
money.


-- 
-Matt
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the net!
mcrosby@nyx.cs.du.edu    -or-    crosby@cs.colorado.edu
From: lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Ideology and Indoctrination
Date: 26 Jan 93 05:26:00 GMT
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1993Jan25.152051@IASTATE.EDU>, danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock) writes...
>In article <1k0tpu$5mp@agate.berkeley.edu>, philjohn@garnet.berkeley.edu
>(Phillip Johnson) writes:
>> We also owe them to the
>> assumption of the writers that the rulers of "science" are not
>> accountable to the public for what they do.   Dr. Gallo and Dr.
>> Baltimore made similar assumptions in believing that they were
>> beyond accountability.
> 
>   That's just plain not true.  Baltimore has a subordinate who lied
>and falsified data; he didn't believe she did it: at no time did he act
>as if he was not accountable and he was in fact held accountable.  You've
>aluded to Science magazine before.  The whole controversy was chronicled in
>there.  Where on earth do you see evidence that Baltimore did not think he was
>accountable?

I have to side with Johnson on this one.  Baltimore told Margot O'Toole,
who had proved her case beyond all doubt, that anywhere she went with
her story, he would go too, and he would be believed because he had a Nobel
prize and she didn't.  For all the horrifying details of this case, see
Robert Bell's _Impure Science_, which just came out last year.  _Science_
also fell down on the job regarding this case, just as it did regarding
Robert Sprague's attempt to blow the whistle on fraud by one of his former
students.  I believe they sat on Walter Stewart's paper on the Thereza
Imanishi-Kari/Baltimore case for a full three years before publishing it.
It took Congressional hearings and a Secret Service investigation to get
the case resolved. 

Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
From: hyde@cs.dal.ca (Bill Hyde)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Moon Dust
Date: 25 Jan 93 19:34:16 GMT
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada

In article <1k1a58INN3d1@dmsoproto.ida.org>, rlg@omni (Randy garrett) writes:
|> One piece of evidence advanced for a young universe concerns
|> the depth of dust on the moon.  In my younger years, I remember
|> quite a bit of concern about the depth likely to be encountered
|> on the moon.  Many people expected 20 - 40 feet of the stuff
|> based on calculated accumulations.  Fortunately for Neil 
|> Armstrong. there turned out to be much less -- of order
|> a few inches.  Anyone know what the accepted reconcilation
|> of the discrepancy is?


	The values for the accumulation rate of dust which
	were used to give this "20- 40 feet" estimate (I've heard
	higher) were taken from measurements made on earth in the late
	1950s.  The authors of the paper reporting this work were
	well aware that there would be some contamination of their
	sample by terrestrial dust, and accordingly gave a range
	of possible values for the accumulation rate of dust.
	Natually, the creationists took the top end of that range
	(and cited it as the "measured value") for their "prediction".

	Space based measurements have long since shown the actual
	accumulation rate to be far smaller than that still quoted
	by creationists.  The amount of dust on the moon actually
	supports a lunar age of several billion years, not several
	thousand.

	All this has been known for well over a decade (you will find
	some of this in Kenneth Miller's article in "Science and
	Creationism", Ashley Montagu, ed, 1984).  Nonetheless
	creationists still cite this refuted moon dust argument as
	if it had some validity.  Does this tell you something about
	their honesty?

						Bill Hyde
Department of Oceanography
Dalhousie University,
Halifax, Nova Scotia
hyde@Ice.ATM.Dal.Ca or hyde@dalac
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: cdminter@icaen.uiowa.edu (Corey D Minter)
Subject: Re: SWAA Lecture
Organization: Iowa Computer Aided Engineering Network, University of Iowa
X-Newsreader: NN version 6.4.19
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 00:53:56 GMT

russpj@microsoft.com (Russ Paul-Jones) writes:

>Natural selection can be briefly described as "survival of the fittest".  
>This can degenerate into a tautology if we define fittest as those 
>that survive the best, but it is usually possible to observe 
>objective characteristics of those individuals that have the most 
>offspring that survive.  A non-Darwinian observation would be 
>individuals that objectively are less fit having more offspring (over
>the long run) than the more fit.

On this note, is that really a problem 'degenerating into a tautology'.
The real problem is when you try to get people to accept that this is
all there is.  Many say 'oh there must be more to it' and that I guess
is where most of the disagreement arises.

>Just for fun, I can think of an observation that would contradict the 
>"fact of evolution" itself.  This fact can be summed up by the observation 
>that organisms are connected by common descent.  A non-evolutionary 
>observation would be the spontaneous generation of new organisms without 
>parents.

Yes, tied with this evolution implies (correct me if I am wrong) that 
morals and consciousness (as people normally claim to understand them)
evolved.  Or there was a time when there must not have been either.
I don't see this as a problem, since I believe that our current cultural
view of both what morals and consciousness are is not complete (without
viewing them in a evolutionary sense rather than authoritative sense).
An example is maybe incest.  It is culturally 'wrong' (I don't subscribe
to a typical definition of wrong), legally 'wrong'.  But wouldn't most
agree from knowledge the effects of inbreeding that it is not favored
by evolution.  I suspect if there is a way to get around the problem of
original common descent will involve a different view of what LIFE is.
Maybe it is just a continuous spectrum from molecules to humans and 
that is all.  When do grains of sand become a pile?

Ask your theists, mind/body dualists, etc that also say they agree with
evolution when it was decided to give the gift of consciousness (asuming
they won't grant consciousness to non humans).

What does everyone think about this? 
-- 
cdminter@icaen.uiowa.edu / cdminter@eng.uiowa.edu (Qlink: EarthsWake)
"The face of a child can say it all, especially the mouth part of the face."
"We tend to scoff at the beliefs of the ancients.  But we can't scoff at them
personally, to their faces, and this is what annoys me."  -Jack Handy, SNL
From: waynebro@juliet.caltech.edu (Broughton, Wayne Jeremy)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Future evolution of Creationism
Date: 21 Jan 1993 22:27 PST
Organization: California Institute of Technology
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: juliet.caltech.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <1762@tdat.teradata.COM>, swf@tools3teradata.com
 (Stan Friesen) writes...
>In article <15JAN199303110854@juliet.caltech.edu>, waynebro@juliet.caltech.edu
 (Broughton, Wayne Jeremy) writes:
>|> In article <1993Jan13.142610.16361@medtron.medtronic.com>,
>|>  ds0007@medtronic.COM (Dale Skiba) writes...
>|> >1) The central belief of Christian Fundamentalist Creationists is
>|> >   that the world is on a downward spiral of moral decay.  (This
>|> >   really does seem to have alot truth to it.) 
>|> 
>|> Not the ones I know.  The central belief of *Christian* Fundamentalist
>|> Creationists is that Jesus is the Son of God who died to save them,
>|> as described in the Bible. (****) 
> 
>No, that is the central belief of all Christians.
>#1 above certainly does seem to be one of the primary tenets of those sects
>that feel Creationism to be necessary to thier faith.
> 
>Now whether it is *the* central distinguishing feature is a different 
question ...
> 
I agree that (****) is the central belief of all Christians.  In particular,
it is the central belief of Christian Creationists, as I stated above.
I also agree that #1 is one of the primary tenets of Fundamentalists, but
not their "central" belief; it is also believed by many others, I would
suspect.  I would have thought the obvious "central *distinguishing*
feature" of Creationists is that they believe in Creationism... :-)

Again, referring to people in my experience (and my own erstwhile experience),
most Creationists are such *because* they are (Biblical literalist) 
Christians; not the other way around.

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

Wayne J. Broughton                 Take the road less travelled by.  
waynebro@juliet.caltech.edu    

Caltech has no idea what my opinions are;  
they think I'm working right now...
From: lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Duane T. Gish, Ph. D.
Keywords: info requested
Date: 23 Jan 93 18:41:00 GMT
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <Jan.21.21.49.24.1993.23599@remus.rutgers.edu>, trott@remus.rutgers.edu (Rich Trott) writes...
> 
>Could someone please give me information on Dr. Duane T. Gish.  He
>claims to have a Ph.D. in biochemistry, but from his misconceptions
>about the second law of thermodynamics, radiometric dating, the fossil
>record, and Darwin, I'd find it hard to believe he has a Ph.D. in
>musicology.  (Relax, music folks -- I'm a music student.)

He really does have a Ph.D. in biochemistry, from the University of
California, Berkeley--in the 1950's, I believe.

>Specifically, I am looking for criticisms of his book which used to be
>titled _Evolution: The Fossils Say No!_ but is now titled something
>much more "positive."  Also, he has a pamphlet out called
>"Brainwashed?" which I am debunking sentence by sentence for the
>coworker who gave it to me.

_Evolution: The Challenge of the Fossil Record_.  I don't know of anything
that specifically debunks Gish from beginning to end; most creationist
critiques address multiple works.  You should take a look at Chris
McGowan's _In the Beginning... A Scientist Shows Why the Creationists
Are Wrong_ (1984, Prometheus), as some of his criticisms led Gish to
drop some passages from the rewrite of his book (without any explanation,
of course).  If you have a copy of _Evolution: The Fossils Say No!_, you
should compare it against the more recent book.  You should also try
to get a copy of Alex Ritchie's "The Creation Science Controversy--a Response
to Deception" from the _Australian Biologist_ (vol. 4, no. 1, March 1991,
pp. 16-23), which points out that on p. 99 of Gish's older book, where
he presents what is purported to be a direct quote from a paper in
French by Marcellin Boule, he is actually giving an erroneous English
translation from that paper by Rev. Patrick O'Connell, from O'Connell's
book, _Science of Today and the Problems of Genesis_, p. 120 I believe.
Gish cites O'Connell elsewhere, but gives no indication that he is
citing a second-hand source in his quote.  (An accurate English translation
can be seen in Boule and Vallois's _Fossil Men_, pp. 145-146.)

Gish drops the quote, again without explanation, in the latter version
of his book.

Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Evolution on Christian TV
Date: 26 Jan 93 00:36:56 GMT
Organization: sgi
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <1993Jan25.142943.1@woods.ulowell.edu>, cotera@woods.ulowell.edu writes:
>
> It's interesting to note that a Gallup poll, either from '91 or '92, said that
> something like 80% of Americans don't believe in evolution.
> --Ray Cote

Well, you got that right.   As a European, I find this *very* interesting.

jon.
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Topic for Discussion?
Date: 25 Jan 1993 22:41:29 GMT
Organization: sgi
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <1993Jan25.073120.16066@smds.com>, rh@smds.com (Richard Harter) writes:
|> In article <1jvl9vINNl54@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
|> 
|> >I think you are misunderstanding what I'm saying.   I'm not saying
|> >that there can't be unreachable places in such a graph.   I'm saying
|> >that you can't prove in general that divergence has some limit.
|> 
|> No, he understood what you were saying; he just misunderstood what
|> you meant to say.  Now that you've said what you meant to say, we
|> all understand what you said.

Really?   From the original post:

	"Perhaps you hold that there is some "limit" to micro-evolution 
	which would prevent cumulative micro-evolution producing macro-
	changes.

	Then the question is, how is this limit implemented? " 

In what way is what I said different to what I meant to say?

jon.
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun)
Subject: Re: Duane T. Gish, Ph. D.
Organization: City University, London
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 93 16:35:43 GMT

In article <1993Jan26.135114.5431@hpmcaa.mcm.hp.com> ford@hpmcaa.mcm.hp.com.mcm.hp.com (Dan Ford) writes:
>Lionel Tun (lionel@cs.city.ac.uk) wrote:
>: The fossil record for intermediates is sparse or non existent
>: per se. There is a good reason for this.
>
>	Quit waffling Lionel, which is it, sparse or non-existent?
>
>If your answer is that it is sparse, how do you explain the sequences that
>we do find sometimes bridging high-level taxanomic groups?
>
>If your answer is that it is non-existent, how do you explain the presence of
>sequences that we do find sometimes bridging high-level taxanomic groups?
>
>	But then, I can probably imagine what you answer will be.  Those
>"supposed" sequences exist only in the minds of those conspiring EVILutionists
>who are seeking to undermine the morality of the masses. Am I close?

You said it!

>Dan


--
  ________  Lionel Tun, lionel@cs.city.ac.uk  ________
 / /_  __/\       Computer Vision Group      /\ \__  _\
/___/_/_/\/ City University, London EC1V 0HB \ \___\_\_\
\___\_\_\/        071-477 8000 ext 3889       \/___/_/_/
From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Voyagers on the Ark of Noah
Date: 26 Jan 93 05:37:39 GMT
Followup-To: talk.origins
Organization: The Language Game Inc.

In article <1993Jan25.131504.1@woods.ulowell.edu>, cotera@woods.ulowell.edu
wrote:
> This is wrong on two points.
>      1. Noah didn't collect the animals, they came to him. (OK, it's a small
> distinction)
This means that either:
1) Animals have a higher level of intelligence than we are aware of,
and mysteriously this talent has disappeared
2) God made a miracle once again.

I'm relying on the miracle concept, mostly because we have many animals
that could not have the brain power to figure out where Noah was placed
in the Middle East. It does however not explain the many-year long 
emigration of kengurus from Australia, neither emigration waves of animals
from all corners of this planet. Why do I think this all is absurd? Why
do I think God should have more brain power and place the animals in a
fourth dimension bubble while the flood is in action?

Kent
---
sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND
Private activities on the Net, opinions are not Apple's, they are mine.