HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: brinkman@si151a.llnl.gov
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: For-sale ads on sci.math??
Date: 25 Jan 93 22:09:20 GMT


   In articles <1jv8ihINNol5@morrow.stanford.edu> salem@pangea.Stanford.EDU
(Bruce Salem) writes...

>	Yes, and reading a remark like this [from the Kalkster--mjb] makes me
> think that the best thing to do is to outlaw some religious practice,
> especially conversion religions. There needs to be a Bill of Rights for the
> spirit to counter religious faschists like you!

   Bruce, you really should learn to include smileys when you are attempting
to be sarcastic.  Something like this can easily be misinterpreted as a
fascist remark on your own part.  But, hey, this advice is worth what you
paid for it.

>Bruce Salem

--
Matt Brinkman
brinkman@edseq1.llnl.gov
From: system@kalki33.lakes.trenton.sc.us (Kalki Dasa)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: For-sale ads on sci.math??
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 93 03:52:59 EST
Organization: Kalki's Infoline BBS, Aiken, SC, USA

robd@cherry09.cray.com (Robert Derrick) writes:

> And what are you doing here, Kalkster?  Remember, you don't have
> anything to sell, so I think that it is time that you left, don't
> you?

Why don't you try and make me?

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      |
      |           (kalki@kalki33.lakes.trenton.sc.us)           |
       ---------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: skroger@zeus.calpoly.edu (Seth L. Kroger)
Subject: Re: Who does Phillip Johnson think the creationists are?
Organization: Computer Science Department, Cal Poly SLO
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 21:15:44 GMT

cotera@woods.ulowell.edu writes:
>In article <2B6444A7.1594@ics.uci.edu>, bvickers@valentine.ics.uci.edu (Brett J. Vickers) writes:
>> This requires almost no response since Ray himself admits that it
>> is not a scientific claim to say that "God exists."  The fact
>> that he even included it at all suggests to me that he felt his
>> list was too short and had to add at least one more claim so
>> as not to appear ignorant.  Backfire.
>
>As I said, his existence is crucial to the interpretation of the facts.  If His
>existence was disproved then Creationism would be falsified.

True, it would be falsified.  But, Creationism, as opposed to
evolution, could still be wrong even if God exists.

>I haven't seen the next article yet but I'll make some preliminary remarks.
>    1. The evidence supports the claim that the speed of light in a vacuum is
>a constant (it is not the same constant in dielectric media).  However this
>does not constitute falsification.  

More specifically, the evidence that Setterfield and Co. base their
non-constant c on is weak to virtually nil.

>    2. There's at least one non-Creationist theory that says that the speed of
>light is not constant.  I think the theory has to do with the Grand Unified
>Theory.
  And...
[About changing decay rates]
>> Unsubstantiated, therefore there is nothing to answer.
>The information comes from a FAQ on alt.physics.new-theories.  That FAQ hasn't
>been posted recently, so I'm asking that it be posted.

While these depend on the merit of the theories in question, under what
circumstances would these constants change, and are they applicable to
the discussion of origins?

>--Ray Cote


|======================================================================|
| Seth Kroger                       "If God made us in His image we    |
| skroger@oboe.calpoly.edu              have certianly returned the    |
| Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo             compliment."  -Voltaire        |
From: tycchow@riesz.mit.edu (Timothy Y. Chow)
Subject: Re: Topic for Discussion?
Organization: None.  This saves me from writing a disclaimer.
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 93 04:31:35 GMT

After much clarification on Livesey's part, I think I finally understand
what he is trying to argue.  The argument is that, contrary to what
creationists (according to Livesey) say, there is no way that
microevolution can have a "built-in" limitation that prevents it from
accumulating into macroevolution---emphasis here on "built-in limitation"
because this (or the equivalent) is the crucial term that's confusing
Harter and me.

Apparently Livesey understands "built-in limitation" to mean something
encoded in the genotype itself that prevents the genotype from changing
more than a certain amount.  Livesey then argues that the part of the
genotype which contains this code is itself subject to change, so that
this can't work.  Furthermore, even if we try to "escape" this problem
by saying that the limit is just viability, exactly which genotypes are
viable depends on the environment, which is in turn subject to change.

To put it another way, suppose the earth is empty and I have in mind a
bunch of organisms that I want to design and put on the earth---sponges,
giraffes, etc.  I want to make sure that after I set these organisms
loose that they won't change into something wildly unlike what I designed
them to be.  I know that microevolutional effects will have some effect
on my beloved genotypes, but cherish the hope that I can somehow build
into the genotypes some kind of protection that will prevent macroevolution
from occurring.  Livesey is arguing that there's no general procedure
that I can adopt to ensure my goal.  By "accident" some of my genotypes
may turn out to be resistant to macroevolutionary change, because they
happen to lie inside an isolated region of the genotype graph, but there
isn't any way I can take an arbitrary genotype and fix it up so that it
won't change much.

Interpreted this way, Livesey's argument has more force than I thought
it had at first.  Nevertheless, I still don't think it's satisfactory.
It still seems that I might be able to take an arbitrary genotype and
then "fix" it so that it becomes inviable in *any* environment as soon
as it changes more than a certain amount.  I emphasize "any" to
circumvent Livesey's comments about changes in the environment.

I should also remark that I can't see any way to argue that there is
something inherent about the very *process* of microevolution that
prevents it from accumulating into macroevolution.  One must appeal
to the actual information encoded in particular genotypes, as far as I
can see.
-- 
Tim Chow     tycchow@math.mit.edu
Where a calculator on the ENIAC is equipped with 18,000 vacuum tubes and weighs
30 tons, computers in the future may have only 1,000 vacuum tubes and weigh
only 1 1/2 tons.                               ---Popular Mechanics, March 1949
From: Dr.Pepper@f241.n103.z1.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: "Darwinism" and Mr. Johnson
X-Sender: newtout 0.06 Jan  3 1993
Date: 25 Jan 93  12:58:00

 > From: system@kalki33.lakes.trenton.sc.us (Kalki Dasa)
 > Message-ID: <4JJqXB6w165w@kalki33.lakes.trenton.sc.us>

 >>    Mr. Johnson, what, exactly, is "Darwinism?" You've used the word
several
 >> dozen times in each of your long articles, but you have not told the
reader
 > s
 >> what the word means. How does "Darwinism" relate to science, evolutionary
 >> theory, and the topic at hand?
 >>    A three of four line explanation would be nice, but please feel free to
 > be
 >> elaborate with your answer.
 >>    Or offer a reference. By dictionary doesn't have the word.

 > Read his book, Darwin on Trial.

You're nothing if not consistent. Now please state the theory of creationism. 
Also, are you ISKCON or KYF?


+--------------------------+--------------------------------------+
| 10                    2  | Garden Grove Institute of Technology |
|        DR PEPPER         | Community Outreach Center            |
|                       4  |                                      |
+--------------------------+ Snail Addr: Unit #1, 7872 Trask      |
| But Jane was wrong.      |             Westminster, Ca  92683   |
| Because when the Swedish | Modem:      714-894-7039             |
| Jockstrap Team arrived,  | Fidonet:    1:103/241                |
| things got a whole lot   | Candynet:   42:1001/1                |
| better.                  | Internet:   Dr.Pepper@f241.n103.z1   |
|                          |              .fidonet.org            |
+--------------------------+--------------------------------------+

---
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: onar@hsr.no (Onar Aam)
Subject: Re: Folklore in the history of Science
Organization: Rogaland University Centre
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 12:01:21 GMT


>Let me state it more precisely -- continental drift was more commonly
>accepted by European geologists, but nobody accepted Wegener's proposed
>mechanism.  My source for saying this is an article by Gould -- what's
>yours?  [I don't have the text at hand, but I will be glad to dig it
>up and give exact quotes.]

I read that article, too. The most interesting thing about it was Gould's
discussion on the interpretation of facts. The *data which Wegener used to come 
up with continental drift was *exactly* the same data which previous geological
theories were based on. And the reason why we prefer the theory of continental
drift before other theories is because of its explanatory power. 



Onar.
From: cotera@woods.ulowell.edu
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Evolution implied by the Bible
Date: 25 Jan 93 19:48:19 GMT
Organization: University of Lowell

In article <91710c3e@ofa123.fidonet.org>, Dr.Pepper@f241.n103.z1.fidonet.org writes:
 
> 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.  

However here is the Theory of Creationism in a nutshell: God created the
universe.
--Ray Cote
From: rlg@omni (Randy garrett)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: does the bible imply evolution?
Date: 21 Jan 1993 21:03:15 GMT
Organization: IDA, Alexandria, VA
NNTP-Posting-Host: omni.ida.org
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

Could you explain, or point to references that explain,
more about the connections between genetic variations
that exist within a specie today and population
pinch points that occurred within the past.  I would
be particularly interested in laboratory experiments
or case studies.

Thanks,

Randy G.
From: hyde@cs.dal.ca (Bill Hyde)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Moon Dust
Date: 26 Jan 93 18:53:51 GMT
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada

In article <1k21o2INN9c9@fido.asd.sgi.com>, livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
|> In article <1993Jan25.235631.4019@news.uiowa.edu>, cdminter@icaen.uiowa.edu (Corey D Minter) writes:
|> |> hyde@cs.dal.ca (Bill Hyde) writes:
|> |> 
|> |> >	Does this tell you something about
|> |> >	their honesty?
|> |> 
|> |> I think that is not it at all.  This phenomena may show that we are
|> |> talking about a group of people that is not interested in surveying
|> |> all the information that is out there.  They tend to put a lot of
|> |> effort in drudging up 'older' references only rather than doing
|> |> some real work and seeing what is out there and deciding for themselves.
|> |> 
|> |> So, I don't think it is a matter of honesty directly, though it comes
|> |> to that when their beliefs are exposed.  Then they might find it hard
|> |> to overcome the fact that they were wrong.  
|> 
|> 
|> I think you may both be wrong.   I think Creationists are more
|> like lawyers.    They are more interested in finding cheap and easy 
|> arguments to convince a jury their way, than they are in arriving
|> at the truth.


	Well, I regard the knowing use of a false argument as
	dishonesty.  I don't see what else it can be characterized
	as.

	In a courtroom in which an innocent person may suffer if
	the prosecution gains a false conviction it may be ethical
	to try such arguments on the jury (though if the prosecution
	successfully refutes them it may only make matters worse for
	the client), but to use it in a scientific debate is simply
	to lie.  An exception occurs if the individual does not
	understand why the argument is wrong.  I cannot conceive that
	the leading creationist authors could be feebleminded enough
	to not see the flaws in the moon dust argument, once these
	were pointed out.



						Bill Hyde
Department of Oceanography
Dalhousie University,
Halifax, Nova Scotia
hyde@Ice.ATM.Dal.Ca or hyde@dalac
From: swf@tools3teradata.com (Stan Friesen)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Duane T. Gish, Ph. D.
Keywords: info requested
Date: 26 Jan 93 19:51:51 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <Jan.21.21.49.24.1993.23599@remus.rutgers.edu>, trott@remus.rutgers.edu (Rich Trott) writes:
|> 
|> CLAIM #1:  "According to evolutionists it would have taken 100 million
|> years for a fish to have evolved from an invertebrate.  But there is absolutely
|> no fossil evidence showing that this took place."
|> 
|> I have ample documentation to discredit his other claims about lack of
|> fossil evidence, but I can't seem to locate anything about this one.
|> Does this evidence truly not exist?  If not, what is the evidence?  If
|> so, how do evolutionists explain it?

Well, the primary fallacy that I see is the assumption that one can accurately
estimate how long it 'would' take for some sort of change to evolve.
How does one know it would take 100 million years for the evolution of fish?
What evidence is there for it?

Secondly, the period of time during which this evoution happened was so long ago
that the fossil record is quite sparse. But even as it is there are a number of
good intermediate forms.  There are several early chordates in Cambrian strata
which make good ancestors for all vertebrates.  Also, the earliest known fish
are not really 'vertebrate' in any real sense - that is they do not actually
have any vertebrae, just a cartelage notochord.  In fact they closely resemble
the known Cephalochordates (the non-vertebrate chordates most similar to fish).

-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
From: news@fedfil.UUCP (news)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Yet Another Saturn Myth Variant
Date: 21 Jan 93 21:23:06 GMT
Organization: HTE

In article <justinf-210193001604@macintosh50.cco.caltech.edu^, justinf@cco.caltech.edu (Justin Fang) writes:
^ In article <234@fedfil.UUCP>, news@fedfil.UUCP (news) wrote: 
^ > Unfortunately, I do not possess a time machine to allow me to see precisely
^ > which form (of those proposed) the Saturnian configuration actually took,
^ > or to tell you precisely how it worked.  Perhaps the earth was being held
^ > in an electro-magnetic baricenter, and the gravitational forces were yet
^ > unequal.
^ 
^ "electro-magnetic baricenter"? "gravitational forces were yet unequal"?
^ Hahahahahahahaha!


You don't like big words...  "center of electromagnetic attraction" then.


-- 
Ted Holden
HTE
From: trott@remus.rutgers.edu (Rich Trott)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Duane T. Gish, Ph. D.
Keywords: info requested
Date: 22 Jan 93 02:49:24 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.


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.)

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.

Few of the claims that Gish makes are difficult to descredit because
they are so absurd.  However, a few I've had difficulty locating
information on in my home library.  I'd like to subject some of these
comments to the net.  Rebuttals are welcome, of course, but what I
really would appreciate would be some references that I could go to
when I hit the library this weekend.  

If any of the following are answered in FAQ's, please direct me to
them and I will cancel this message.  Thank you.


CLAIM #1:  "According to evolutionists it would have taken 100 million
years for a fish to have evolved from an invertebrate.  But there is absolutely
no fossil evidence showing that this took place."

I have ample documentation to discredit his other claims about lack of
fossil evidence, but I can't seem to locate anything about this one.
Does this evidence truly not exist?  If not, what is the evidence?  If
so, how do evolutionists explain it?


CLAIM #2:  "Darwin cited the giraffe as an outstanding example of
natural selection.  Supposedly, as a result of extended droughts, the
supply of green leaves could be obtained only at the top of the trees,
and therefore the shorter necked giraffe died off.  And the giraffes
which grew longer necks survived.  However, there is no evidence
whatever in the fossil record or elsewhere that giraffes with short
necks have ever existed.  And what would have happened to young
giraffes with relatively short necks?"

He goes on to pontificate about Darwin, displaying his inability to
distinguish Darwin's theory from Lamarck's.  Truly embarassing for a
Ph.D. in biochemistry.  Is this guy for real?

 
-- 
Rich Trott
trott@remus.rutgers.edu
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: robd@cherry09.cray.com (Robert Derrick)
Subject: Re: For-sale ads on sci.math??
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: 22 Jan 93 19:09:59 CST

Kalki Dasa (system@kalki33.lakes.trenton.sc.us) wrote:
: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:
: 
.. [contentless post deleted]

Damnit, Weiner, you left the door open!  And just look what 
you let back in!  Are you proud yourself, young man?

And what are you doing here, Kalkster?  Remember, you don't have
anything to sell, so I think that it is time that you left, don't
you?

---
| don't chant to forget : smiley, smiley, smiley!
---

rob derrick				robd@cherry.cray.com
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: Talk.Origins Fallacies (was: Re: Flake theories, a litmus test?)
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 23:06:20 GMT

In article <1jpketINNc3f@moe.ksu.ksu.edu>, jsanders@phys.ksu.edu (Justin M.
Sanders) writes:
>In article <1993Jan22.103554.1@si151a.llnl.gov> brinkman@si151a.llnl.gov
writes:
>>   I would suggest that all "pseudoscience" (on talk.origins) at any rate
>>can be discerned based on the inclusion of one or more of the following
>>fallacies.
>>
>[nifty list of fallacies deleted]
>
>I would add:
>
>Argumentum ad Hominem Stramineum (from stramineus-- adj. "made of straw")
>   The strawman argument.  "The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics says everything
>tends to become disorderly."

  Wouldn't that be more like: "Evolution says that languages should get more
complicated, but they don't so evolution is wrong."

 |  __L__
-|-  ___  Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub
 |  | o | kv07@iastate.edu
 |/ `---' Iowa State University
/|   ___  Math Department
 |  |___| 400 Carver Hall
 |  |___| Ames, IA  50011
 J  _____
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: trott@remus.rutgers.edu (Rich Trott)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Duane T. Gish, Ph. D.
Date: 28 Jan 93 00:24:21 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

-- 
Rich Trott
trott@remus.rutgers.edu
From: philjohn@garnet.berkeley.edu (Phillip Johnson)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: "Darwinism" and Mr. Johnson
Date: 23 Jan 1993 01:33:30 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: garnet.berkeley.edu

From "Darwin on Trial," p. 4: By "Darwinism" I mean fully naturalistic 
evolution, involving chance mechanisms guided by natural selection.  The theory is not controversial at the peppered moth level, but it is very controversial
indeed when offered as a general explanation for the existence of complex livingorganisms.
.

-- 
Phillip E. Johnson
  School of Law, University of California, Berkeley CA 94720
From: salem@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Bruce Salem)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Newton On Trial
Date: 24 Jan 1993 23:34:42 GMT
Organization: Stanford Univ. Earth Sciences
NNTP-Posting-Host: pangea.stanford.edu

	Hey, watch the attribution. You quoted stuff
that should be attributed to Philip Johnson that look like
they came from me. They did not.

	The title should be "Darwin on Trial", the title of
Johnson's book. 

	I think that Johnson's criticism of Darwin are based
on an undisguized set of religious prejudices held in fallacy
of appeal to authority, and nothing more. He may be well-known
because of his books, but every one of his beliefs have been
heard here before.

Bruce Salem
From: alanf@tekig6.PEN.TEK.COM (Alan M Feuerbacher)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
Date: 23 Jan 93 19:41:11 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

>....
>>}: }Science cannot prove anything!  That's right!  All it can do
>>}: }is disprove things.
>>}
>>}Hmm, if you can't prove anything, how can you disprove anything?
>....

An old book by Bertrand Russell (_The Scientific Outlook_, The Free
Press, Glencoe, Illinois, 1931), has some very insightful comments
on the nature of knowledge and how we justify what we think we know.
This means knowing, not just about science, but about all personal
experiences.

Alan Feuerbacher
alanf@atlas.pen.tek.com
From: justinf@cco.caltech.edu (Justin Fang)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Yet Another Saturn Myth Variant
Followup-To: talk.origins
Date: 21 Jan 1993 08:15:02 GMT
Organization: none whatsoever
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: macintosh50.cco.caltech.edu

In article <234@fedfil.UUCP>, news@fedfil.UUCP (news) wrote: 
> Unfortunately, I do not possess a time machine to allow me to see precisely
> which form (of those proposed) the Saturnian configuration actually took,
> or to tell you precisely how it worked.  Perhaps the earth was being held
> in an electro-magnetic baricenter, and the gravitational forces were yet
> unequal.

"electro-magnetic baricenter"? "gravitational forces were yet unequal"?
Hahahahahahahaha!
Ted, your command of pseudo-scientific technobabble is sadly lacking. You
sound as if you don't know what you're talking about! (Oops, I forgot. You
*don't* know what you're talking about...) I suggest you watch "Star Trek".
The writers there have it down pat.
 
> -- 
> Ted Holden
> HTE

Justin Fang (justinf@cco.caltech.edu)
                               This space intentionally left blank.