HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jani.patokallio%acc1bbs@ssr.com (Jani Patokallio) 
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Profound disappointme
Date: 1 Jan 93 14:04:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Advanced Computer Concepts BBS, New Rochelle, NY 914-654-1981
Reply-To: jani.patokallio%acc1bbs@ssr.com (Jani Patokallio) 

In article <1992Dec31.075649.21775#klaava.Helsinki.FI> cust_ts@klaava.
Helsinki.FI (Tero Sand) writes:
-> In article <187#fedfil.UUCP> news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
-> >complex lifeforms are traceable back to dust via evolution, and I do not
-> >believe that there is any way of demonstrating the multi-million year
-> >timeframes commonly given out for ages of life on this earth.
-> 
-> Ever heard of radioactive dating?

Radioactive dating is an evilutionist conspiracy to discredit the Holy
Scripture and to turn everybody away from the One True Faith.  It was
made up by those nasty scientists, so it can't be trusted.

But you knew that already.

--
Jani Patokallio                  |  "Ignorance is the soil in which belief
acc1bbs!jani.patokallio@ssr.com  |   in miracles grows."  -R. G. Ingersoll
---
 . AME 1.07 . 
                                                                     
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: artificial breeding
Keywords: artificial, natural, breeding, selection
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 14:32:31 GMT

From sci.bio:
In article <BznxMG.F3A@NeoSoft.com> claird@NeoSoft.com (Cameron Laird) writes:
}In article <ldsoderb.725021254@reading> ldsoderb@susssys1.reading.ac.uk (David S. Oderberg) writes:
}>Can someone please recommend a recent review article which discusses the
}>following question: Has artificial breeding/selection, including recent
}>efforts in biotech., produced any new species?
}			.
}Yes.
}
}Or perhaps I misunderstand the question.  Many
}domesticates, including dogs, cats, cattle,
}maize, guar, probably tomato, wheat, triticale,
}some begonias, tangelos, perhaps modern straw-
}berry, grapefruit, ..., are different species
}than existed before or outside of domestication.
}Is that what you wanted?

And the discussion goes on.  Sorry, creationists.  A new species is no big deal, 
let alone "impossible".


Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: emc@doe.carleton.ca (Eli Chiprout)
Subject: "meaning" of life (was: Throop/Nietzsche problems)
Organization: Dept. of Electronics, Carleton University
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 15:44:09 GMT

In <184@fedfil.UUCP> news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:

>Evolution logically denies the next world.  Without something beyond this
>world, what meaning would you claim your life has?  What do you plan on 
>doing within the next ten years which anybody 5000 years from now will have
>any way of knowing about or which will affect them or anything else in the
>universe in any way?

Why is leaving posterity a memory of your present actions so important to
you?  That question is more fundamental.  

While you answer that, can you tell us what the meaning of the next 
world is that differs from this one?  Why do we need a present world
before we reach the more meaningful next world?  Why not go directly
to the more meaningful one?

But before you do that, let's define our terms more clearly. Can
you define what you mean by "meaning" and "meaningful" so that we
don't cross our wires.  Then proceed to tell us what "meaning" YOUR
life has with the knowledge of the next world.

You have been candid up till now, so please continue so we can
all benefit and learn something.

>Ted Holden
>HTE

--
Eli Chiprout                 
Dept. of Electronics, 
Carleton University, Canada
emc@doe.carleton.ca
From: fisher@ivy.win.tue.nl (Steven Fisher)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: On God and Science
Date: 21 Dec 92 13:56:08 GMT
Reply-To: fisher@win.tue.nl
Organization: Disorganization

In article <1992Dec18.130553.20138@city.cs> lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun) writes:
|>I laughed out of amazement and amusement at the tenacity of
|>evolutionists in coming up with outrageous ideas in an
|>effort to convince themselves of the non-creation of the
|>world and of themselves.

There is overwhelming evidence supporting the theory of evolution.  You have
been asked *MANY TIMES* to provide evidence for your statements on t.o, but
you haven't.  Put up or shut up.

|>I am a little sad too, that so much effort is used to avoid
|>the Creator, when the same effort could equally be used to
|>seek Him.

Once again, you go around insulting those of us who believe that the theory
of evolution describes the process that God used.  I am a little sad too, that
so much effort is used to avoid the evidence *for* evolution by Lionel.

-steve

Don't forget to chant:

Lionel is an idiot;
Lionel is Dishonest; 
Lionel is a moron.
From: news@fedfil.UUCP (news)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Throop/Nietzsche problems
Date: 1 Jan 93 02:23:10 GMT
Organization: HTE

In article <1992Dec30.213946.6149@aurora.com>, isaak@aurora.com (Mark Isaak) writes:
 
^>lesser known fact that new studies are revealing that the spiritual
^>realm which most normal people believe in and can sense, once existed at
^>least in part on this earth.  At present we cannot perceive this other
^>realm directly or with our senses. . .
 
^What is this spiritual realm?  To me, nothing can be spiritual unless
^I experience it in the present. 

That's why I said "most people" instead of "everybody".  Obviously, I didn't
intend to include nerds in the discussion.  I tend to write a little bit more
precisely than you may be accustomed to;  try reading my stuff a bit more
carefully.



-- 
Ted Holden
HTE

Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: onar@hsr.no (Onar Aam)
Subject: Re: On God and Science
Organization: Rogaland University Centre
Distribution: world,local
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 10:00:45 GMT

>esot@troi.cc.rochester.edu (Eric Sotnak) writes:
>>Mr. Tun has made the mistake of claiming that since the
>>(antecedent) probability of life existing (or having come into existence) is
>>so low, supernatural agency must be involved.  Another mistake in judgment.
>
>I would not have said low, but rather zero - ie impossible. The
>mistake is in assuming that if there are enough `tries' then
>something that is impossible becomes possible.
>
>--
>  ________  Lionel Tun, lionel@cs.city.ac.uk  ________
> / /_  __/\       Computer Vision Group      /\ \__  _\
>/___/_/_/\/ City University, London EC1V 0HB \ \___\_\_\
>\___\_\_\/        071-477 8000 ext 3889       \/___/_/_/

   Lionel, could you please put forward a coherent and detailed explanation of why
on earth the probability is zero? Besides, the probability of what? Abiogenesis?
Of evolution? Of both? 
   Could you also give us an idea of how much time you have spent trying to
understand principles of biology, or even of science? If your reading on biology
limits to mere creationist critics, isn't that to build your bold statements on
faith only? Do you honestly believe that your faith is going to convince anyone
on Talk.Origins? Remember that most of the people here are men (and women) of
reason. Faith won't do. Do you feel that you understand biology much, much better
than people here on TO? Do you trust science at all? Do you think that theory
should be reflected through technology? For instance, is it possible to make a
car based on physical theories which are wrong? Or even better, is it
possible to make even smaller Integrated Circuits (ICs) than today if quantum
mechanics turn out to be bogus? And finally, is it possible to have sciences 
(genetics, information theory) which correlates with an evolutionary history 
(which you claim is wrong) AND which at the same time have an imposing practical 
application?


Onar.


Newsgroups: talk.origins,talk.religion.misc
From: mmeyer@m2.dseg.ti.com (Mark Meyer)
Subject: Re: YOUNG EARTHERS _AND_ BIBLE CRITICS WATCH OUT! (huh?)
Organization: TI DSEG, Spring Creek, Plano, Tx.
Followup-To: talk.origins,talk.religion.misc
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 18:12:03 GMT


	I don't know about others, but one thing in this essay struck
me as particularly odd:

> The Scientific Method
> ---------------------
> What Astruc, Eichhorn, and the higher critics failed to do, among
> other things, was to recognize the scientific method in the text.
> Interestingly, the scientific method, to a large extent, originated
> from renaissance experimenters' perception of certain consistent
> patterns in Scripture.  In describing sequences of physical events,
> the Bible always begins with a statement of the point of view, or
> frame of reference.  Next, there is an indication of the initial
> conditions.  Then comes a chronological account of the physical
> events.  Finally, there is the conclusion of the matter.  Here, in a
> nutshell, is the scientific method.

	Now, I'm no scientist (I'm a computer programmer /
mathematician) but I have a good science background, and I'm a regular
lurker in talk.origins.  This thing above doesn't look like any
description of "the scientific method" that I've ever seen.  It looks
to me like the paragraph is saying, "When the Bible is telling a
story, it sets the scene, and then it tells the beginning, the middle,
and the end of the story."  That's not scientific method, that's
literary method.  I can't find a trace of science in there.  Where
does the author get off calling this "scientific method"?  Anyone?

-- 
Mark Meyer                                               | mmeyer@dseg.ti.com |
Texas Instruments, Inc.,  Plano TX                       +--------------------+
Every day, Jerry Junkins is grateful that I don't speak for TI.
"There's lots of bread in the freezer!"  "No, I threw it out.  Hard as a rock."
From: swf@tools3teradata.com (Stan Friesen)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Speed of Light and Relativity
Date: 22 Dec 92 17:47:52 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <1992Dec15.184320.18636@digi.lonestar.org>, gpalo@digi.lonestar.org (Gerry Palo) writes:
|> 
|> Another interesting question would be, how is it that we are able to
|> perceive the passage of time.  It seems that there must be a part of our
|> consciousness that stands beyond time.  

And how can a computer percieve the passage of time, must be a part of the computer
that stands beyond time, NOT!

Seriously we can do it the same way computers can, we have an internal clock (or
more likely, several internal clocks).

-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: dao@TorreyPinesCA.ncr.com (Deborah Wagner 3621)
Subject: Origins/Book?
Organization: NCR (Torrey Pines Development Center)
Disclaimer: This posting does not necessarily reflect the opinions of NCR.
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 92 00:50:48 GMT



 I once read a book about "Science Proves the Bible", or something
 like that.  It was a published book, but looked "typed" on the
 inside.  I saw many, many copies in our local Goodwill store,
 and gave my copy to a friend.  Now I cannot remember the
 author or name of the book, but it went through, by chapter,
 each of the scientific diciplines and its findings which
 lended support to much of the Bible.

 Anyone know of this book?  Advanced thanks.
-- 
______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________
THE CUSTOMER IS OUR FINAL INSPECTOR
 _____________________________________________________________________________
   _    .  |   _____  |   ____   | DEBORAH WAGNER (dao)x3621 STV-9472
  | \   |  |  |       |  |    |  | NCR-Torrey Pines Development Center 
  |  \  |  |  |       |  |----   | @TorreyPinesCA.ncr.com        
  |   \_|  |  |_____  |  |    \  | (619) 597-3621           
 =============================================================================
From: cust_ts@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Tero Sand)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Profound disappointment
Date: 31 Dec 92 07:52:30 GMT
Organization: University of Helsinki

In article <C03632.IKA@cs.psu.edu> schwartz@roke.cs.psu.edu (Scott Schwartz) writes:
>
>    The sad thing to learn from this is that, for your average
>creationist, science and velikovskiism probably don't look all that
>different.  Very likely creationists think that scientists are
>unreasonable in the same way that scientists think velikovskiites are.
>Ted is trying to illuminate that twisted point.

Maybe they do, but that has _nothing_ to do with how things are. Teds
views, methods, etc. are _not_ scientific. To use Teds words...awww,
nevermind.

	Tero Sand
-- 
	EMail: cust_ts@cc.helsinki.fi   or   custts@cc.helsinki.fi
   "I feel most ministers who claim they've heard God's voice are eating
too much pizza before they go to bed at night, and it's really an 
intestinal disorder, not a revelation." - Reverend Jerry Falwell
From: jgacker@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: On God and Science
Date: 21 Dec 92 21:22:46 GMT
Organization: Goddard Space Flight Center
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]



Gotta fix another typo.

James G. Acker (jgacker@news.gsfc.nasa.gov) wrote:
: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us wrote:
: : jgacker@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker)    writes:
: : 
: 
: Discussing:
: : > : ON GOD AND SCIENCE
: : > : by Sadaputa Dasa
: : > : (c) 1992 The Bhaktivedanta Book Trust
: : > : Used by permission.
: : 
: 	{first part appears in previous posting}

: 	That's a key difference.  Thermodynamics is more constraining
: on the system than quantum mechanics.  Thermodynamics can normally be
: aligned with "common sense" -- i.e. add heat, increase molecular
: motion, more disorder = more entropy.  Many quantum phenomena define
		                                                ^^^^^^


Oops -- I meant to say "Many quantum phenomena _defy_ "common sense".

: "common sense".  The quantum forces that constitute the strong force
: binding neutrons and protons in the nucleus have little influence on the
: atomic bonds in a water molecule.  The forces are so determinate that
: "bond energy" is defined, and the oscillations and motions of the
: atoms in a molecule can be seen as energy absorption bands (which
: is related to greenhouse gas warming, but I digress).
: 

	Jim Acker
	jgacker@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov
Xref: sparky talk.origins:15977 talk.religion.misc:24823
From: swf@tools3teradata.com (Stan Friesen)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: TIME cover story
Date: 31 Dec 92 20:48:49 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <1hlcnmINNkrb@agate.berkeley.edu>, philjohn@garnet.berkeley.edu writes:
|> 
|>    Last week's TIME magazine cover story (Dec. 28) was titled
|> "What Does Science Tell Us About God?".  The story (by Robert
|> Wright) began by saying that "if you're religious in a
|> conventional sense, you probably don't seek theological guidance
|> from physicists."  Many people, however, are "religiously
|> inclined, but reaching for scientific support" for their beliefs.

Yep, lots of people do not understand science.

|> Moreover, TIME said that "many, perhaps most, evolutionary
|> biologists" now believe that "the coming of highly intelligent
|> life was close to inevitable," because of a supposed inherent
|> tendency of evolution to favor "behavioral flexibility," which
|> demands "complex information processing - smarts." 

I think that TIME must have been looking for this sort of statement.
I have never seen any such position stated by any of the leading researchers
in evolution.  I have never even seen such a statement in any refereed journal.

TIME is simply *wrong* here.

|>      When the U.S. National Academy of Sciences faced the threat
|> of creation-science in 1981, it passed a resolution saying that
|> "Religion and science are separate and mutually exclusive realms
|> of human thought whose presentation in the same context leads to
|> misunderstanding of both scientific theory and religious belief." 
|> 
|>      My questions are:  (1) Was this resolution merely a stick to
|> beat the creationists with, or does it apply to the National
|> Academy's own members?  (2) Should we "seek theological guidance
|> from physicists (or biologists)?"  We seem to be getting a lot of
|> it lately.

So some scientists try to reconcile thier religious beliefs with science in
possibly questionable ways, and then publish these ideas in non-refereed
publications - does this make thier speculations any more scientific than
those of any other theologan?

-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Subject: Re: On God and Science
Reply-To: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Organization: Iowa State University
Distribution: world,local
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 15:55:27 GMT

In article <22DEC199200180519@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu>,
lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) writes:

> I think there *are* meaningful probabilities to be discussed regarding
> the origin of life.

   I wanted to firmly agree with Jim Lippard on this and go on to say that
these probabilities can probably be estimated, eventually, by a series of
experiments and observations partially guided by those experiments.  I saw a
number of people working on creating abiogenisis events at Alife III this
summer (one of the hot topics is lipid membranes.  The form spontaneosly and
can partition water into partially seperate zones which allow very complex
chemistry).  Once we have a menu of abiogenisis techniques available (5-30
years?) it will get much easier to get esimates of these probabilities.

> Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
> Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
> University of Arizona
> Tucson, AZ 85721

Dan
Danwell@IASTATE.EDU
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: mmeyer@m2.dseg.ti.com (Mark Meyer)
Subject: Re: Talk.Origins Wrestling Federation
Organization: TI DSEG, Spring Creek, Plano, Tx.
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 19:35:52 GMT

In article <BzL8Fy.HFs.2@cs.cmu.edu> kck+@cs.cmu.edu (Karl Kluge) writes:
> Of course, if Beckmann can declare me an Obersturmgruppenfuehrer, who does
> that make him?

	Hell, I'm still trying to figure out what it makes YOU, and I
know German. :-)

-- 
Mark Meyer                                               | mmeyer@dseg.ti.com |
Texas Instruments, Inc.,  Plano TX                       +--------------------+
Every day, Jerry Junkins is grateful that I don't speak for TI.
"There's lots of bread in the freezer!"  "No, I threw it out.  Hard as a rock."
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: On God and Science
Date: 25 Dec 92 23:27:45 GMT
Organization: sgi
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <n1315t@ofa123.fidonet.org>, Dr.Pepper@f241.n103.z1.fidonet.org writes:
|> 
|>  > From: lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun)
|>  > Message-ID: <1992Dec22.122611.21699@city.cs>
|> 
|>  > esot@troi.cc.rochester.edu (Eric Sotnak) writes:
|>  >>Mr. Tun has made the mistake of claiming that since the
|>  >>(antecedent) probability of life existing (or having come into existence)
|> is
|>  >>so low, supernatural agency must be involved.  Another mistake in judgment.
|> 
|>  > I would not have said low, but rather zero - ie impossible. The
|>  > mistake is in assuming that if there are enough `tries' then
|>  > something that is impossible becomes possible.
|> 
|> Aww, guess that's it for evolution. Guess there's nothing left but to state
|> the theory of creationism. Please do so.

That's one thing he could do.  Another is to explain how, if the
possibility is zero, God came into existence.   A third would be
his long-promised "easy" and "logical" explanation of the fossil 
record using a Flood model.

jon.
From: lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Creation Evidences
Date: 22 Dec 92 22:38:00 GMT
 <7970@tekig7.PEN.TEK.COM> <62899@mimsy.umd.edu> <1657@tdat.teradata.COM>
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1657@tdat.teradata.COM>, swf@tools3teradata.com (Stan Friesen) writes...
>Yep, it is *still* drivel.  Denton is *not* a paleontologist, he is a lawyer. His
>approach to evidence is legalistic, not scientific.

Michael Denton's not a paleontologist, but he's not a lawyer, either.
He's a molecular biologist of some kind, with an M.D.  You're thinking
of Philip Johnson.

Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
From: dave@hpdstma.ptp.hp.com (Dave Waller)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Throop/Nietzsche problems
Date: 23 Dec 1992 18:27:48 GMT
Organization: Hewlett Packard
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpdstma.ptp.hp.com

In article <22DEC199223460850@iago.caltech.edu>, lmh@iago.caltech.edu (Henling, Lawrence M.) writes:
|> In article <182@fedfil.UUCP}, news@fedfil.UUCP (news) aka ted holden writes...

|> }See what I mean?  Throop just doesn't get it.  The fact that man's
|> }entire existence becomes utterly meaningless under this system does not
|> }even strike him as a problem.  Kind of like somebody standing there
|> 
|>  So ted needs meaning in his life and therefore god must exist. Why 
|> won't more religious people admit the true reason for their beliefs?

More accurately, Ted needs religion and belief in the supernatural to confer
meaning in his life. Many of us are quite capable of deriving significant
meaning and purpose without those things, yet Ted seems unable to grasp
that such can be done without the supernatural, therefore he, like so many
other deliberately intellectually blind people, can't understand how one
can find purpose and great joy in their existence all by itself.

-- 
Dave Waller
From: jgacker@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Ignorance in high places
Date: 28 Dec 92 14:00:25 GMT
Organization: Goddard Space Flight Center
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]


Brett J. Vickers (bvickers@valentine.ics.uci.edu) wrote:
: 	"There's no way this extraordinarily complicated
: 	 mechanism known as the human body just happened
: 	 to come up from slime and ooze someplace.  When
: 	 I make an incision with my scalpel, I see organs
: 	 of such intricacy that there simply hasn't been
: 	 enough time for natural evolutionary processes to
: 	 have developed them."
: 
: 		- Dr. C. Everett Koop
: 		  Former US Surgeon General
: --
: Brett J. Vickers
: bvickers@ics.uci.edu

	Koop is a very staunch fundamentalist Christian, just in case
you couldn't figure that out.  He spoke two months ago at my church, and
it is interesting how 1) his leanings and beliefs almost disqualified him
from the position of Surgeon General, in which a religious belief should not
be considered, and 2) he became an effective anti-AIDS crusader, advocating
policies (such as distribution and use of condoms) which make fundamentalist
crusaders pale.

	Jim Acker
	jgacker@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov
Newsgroups: talk.origins