HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: news@fedfil.UUCP (news)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: A man shall be judged by the company he keeps
Date: 12 Apr 92 00:17:59 GMT
Organization: HTE

In article <1992Apr10.193220.20194@infonode.ingr.com), knightb@palmerc@abulafia.b21.ingr.com (William B. Knight) writes:
) In article <1992Apr6.235255.29610@rhrk.uni-kl.de> kring@efes.physik.uni-kl.de (Thomas Kettenring) writes:
 
) Note:  I am not trying to support any conclusion of Ted's.  
 
) Having said this, let me ask:
 
) Will the holocaust still be a well-documented fact 2000 years
) from now?
 
) brad
 
) Brad Knight 
) knightb@abulafia.b21.ingr.com

The answer at this time is unfortunately this:  that if scientists have somehow
managed to convince themselves that the Noachian Deluge, the single largest
topic of ancient literature, is a fiction and a sham or some kind of a tale of
a local flood which simply spread, and this within the last 200 years (since
NOBODY, scientists, priests, kings, peasants, or anybody else believed this
200 years ago), then there is no reason to believe that the holocaust will be
taken as real history 2000 years from now.


Ted Holden


-- 
HTE
bear
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: salem@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Bruce Salem)
Subject: Re: Evil Nature
Organization: DSG, Stanford University
Date:  9 Apr 92 21:52:06 GMT

ford@hpmcaa.mcm.hp.com (Dan Ford) writes:

>lindsay+@cs.cmu.edu (Donald Lindsay) writes:
>> 
>> ford@hpmcaa.mcm.hp.com (Dan Ford) writes:
>> >7.	He concluded by saying that all of the cruel and "bad" things in 
>> >nature, such as carnivorous creatures, parasites, viruses, pests, thorns, 
>> >etc. were the product of Satan.
>> 
>> I doubt he's a vegetarian, himself.
>> 
>  [deletion]
>> -- 
>> Don		D.C.Lindsay 	Carnegie Mellon Computer Science

	This is most amusing. If God made us he made us with canine
teeth and all the other differentiated teeth of mammals who eat
everything, including meat, and even allowed us to digest meat, how
could it have been the work of satan for us to eat meat, and what
about all the plant beings we do kill in order to eat when we
don't eat meat? Up with Plant Liberation! Kill the people who cut
down trees to build houses! :-)

	Now, I have no quarrel with vegitarians, as such. I don't
eat alot of meat myself, just some. The assertion that eating meat
is the work of Satan is just stupid.

>  I don't want to argue with most of what you said, but I should mention,
>that Dr. Coffin most likely *IS* a vegetarian.  This is because of his 
>Seventh-Day Adventist heritage.  I wouldn't know his personal reasons
>for vegetarianism, but most SDA's are vegetarian for health reasons rather
>than for moral or ethical reasons (that is, the reasons I hear are not
>that it is morally wrong to kill cows, but that it is bad for your health
>to eat cows, and your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit, etc...).

>Cheers,

>Dan Ford

	Vegitarianism was big with Hindus long before there were
any SDAs. Oh, by the way the SDAs are big on Creationism. I have
one of their tracts. Aren't they behind some of the lobbying groups
opposed to Bill Honig in Californaia? Aren't they influiencial in
places in Orange and San Diago Counties?

Bruce Salem

Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: ford@hpmcaa.mcm.hp.com (Dan Ford)
Subject: Re: Evil Nature
Organization: HP Cardiology Business Unit - McMinnville, OR
Date: Thu, 09 Apr 1992 18:51:31 GMT


lindsay+@cs.cmu.edu (Donald Lindsay) writes:
> 
> ford@hpmcaa.mcm.hp.com (Dan Ford) writes:
> >7.	He concluded by saying that all of the cruel and "bad" things in 
> >nature, such as carnivorous creatures, parasites, viruses, pests, thorns, 
> >etc. were the product of Satan.
> 
> I doubt he's a vegetarian, himself.
> 
  [deletion]
> -- 
> Don		D.C.Lindsay 	Carnegie Mellon Computer Science

  I don't want to argue with most of what you said, but I should mention,
that Dr. Coffin most likely *IS* a vegetarian.  This is because of his 
Seventh-Day Adventist heritage.  I wouldn't know his personal reasons
for vegetarianism, but most SDA's are vegetarian for health reasons rather
than for moral or ethical reasons (that is, the reasons I hear are not
that it is morally wrong to kill cows, but that it is bad for your health
to eat cows, and your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit, etc...).

Cheers,

Dan Ford
From: isaak@imagen.com (mark isaak)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Another Flood Begins  (was: Darwin's Enigma)
Date: 17 Apr 92 18:11:03 GMT
Organization: imagen

In article <9eDh02JYce2Q00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> jloucks@uts.amdahl.com (Jim Loucks) writes:
>Now, making a claim that supporting evidence 
>for special creation has been posted will probably bring on a flood
>(no pun intended) of requests and questions for exactly that.

Absolutely; I so request.  I have never yet seen any evidence for
special creation more concrete than the claim, "I feel it in my
heart."

>Prior to this occurrence, I'd like to suggest we take a break from
>the debate and consider the emotions involved.

Let's instead consider motives, since they are what mainly drive the
emotions.

My main motive relative to the issue of origins is curiosity.  I love
to discover how things work.  I particularly delight in discovering
that things I have long believed (such as the ideas that people use
only 10% of their brain, or that DDT thins eggshells) aren't true.
However, new ideas must have some support before they replace old ones.

My spiritual growth is also important to me.  Many creationists have
the false notion that their religion is appropriate for everyone, and
use "scientific" creationism as an excuse to force their religion on
others.  For me, though, their religion means spiritual death, and I
consider people who want to force their religion on me--and, by extension,
to others--to be morally equivalent to murderers.

>I'd rather spend my time with those who are willing or at least
>trying to listen.

I also.  Can you give us reason to believe that you yourself fit that
description?  I have tried to be candid about my own motives; could
you do the same?
-- 
Mark Isaak    imagen!isaak@decwrl.dec.com  or  {decwrl,sun}!imagen!isaak
	       "The color of truth is gray." - Andre Gide
From: ed_eck@milkwy.enet.dec.com
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Pictures of a sea of lava, and where they may be found
Date: 9 Apr 92 13:45:32 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation


In article <2716@fedfil.UUCP>, news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes...

>That Venus is mostly covered by lava and much of that recent is well known
>by now from the probes and may be seen in the Jan. 92 issue of Discover 
>magazine which is readily available.  
 ...
>Ted Holden
>HTE
>bear



Likewise in the latest (or maybe last month's) _Scientific American_. Nice 
pictures of recent lava flows. 'Course, by "recent" they mean "several million
years ago." Says so in the captions.
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: st0o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Steven Timm)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: From the heart!
Date: 17 Apr 92 03:18:44 GMT
Organization: Doctoral student, Physics, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

On the general question of falsifying a theory:

It is not necessary for those who falsify the theory to present a new theory
to take its place.  For instance, our high-energy experiment will present
data that invalidates all current models of hyperon polarization.  We do 
not need to present a different model, just to show that the theory 
as it exists does not fit the data.  The truth or falsehood of the theory 
is independent of any other models that may exist.  For instance, it 
was not necessary to bring the Darwin mechanism in to disprove Lamarck.

When we come to the question of hearts, we need to ask, what data would be
sufficient to falsify the hypothesis "the four-chambered heart developed
from the simpler hearts of ancestral organisms."  A three-chambered heart
in chimpanzees would be such evidence.  It's not clear that the instances
being mentioned are enough to falsify the hypothesis.  Perhaps this is 
because the hypothesis itself is ill-formed.  As long as the space of
unseen transitional forms is infinite, we can say that the human heart
did not evolve from that of some earlier one, but we can never disprove them 
all.

Steve Timm
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: jloucks@uts.amdahl.com (Jim Loucks)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Darwin's Enigma
Date: 16 Apr 92 17:53:26 GMT
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

robd@cray.com (Robert Derrick) writes:
>The difference, that you asked for, is that special creation is
>devoid of even a theory, or any evidence whatsoever.  Well, maybe
>the preceeding statement is not true, but if so, the real conspiracy
>is in ICR and L.Tun and yourself, because none of you has ever
>produced one single piece of useful evidence. 

I think the real problem is that whatever evidence is presented, 
isn't accepted in talk.origins. Because it isn't accepted doesn't
mean it isn't evidence. Now, making a claim that supporting evidence 
for special creation has been posted will probably bring on a flood
(no pun intended) of requests and questions for exactly that. Prior
to this occurrence, I'd like to suggest we take a break from the
debate and consider the emotions involved. I receive quite a bit of
what some call hate mail, then again I receive about the same amount
of support mail. I could probably guarantee you that those who send
the hate mail are cowards, and wouldn't say a word to my face. Life's
too short not to enjoy it and death's inevitable, I'd rather spend
my time with those who are willing or at least trying to listen. This
makes life much more enjoyable, we have too many joy robbers out here.

> Or is there another truth that you are keeping from us?

This question sure peaked my curiosity, please explicate.

-- 
Jim Loucks           jloucks@uts.amdahl.com 
{apple, pyramid, sun, uunet}!amdahl!jloucks
From: lindsay+@cs.cmu.edu (Donald Lindsay)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Darwin's Enigma
Date: 14 Apr 92 01:29:37 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon


jloucks@uts.amdahl.com (Jim Loucks) writes:
>I have a video tape of some of these scientists saying exactly what
>Sunderland communicates in his book.

I doubt it.

First, the scientists have denied this. Angrily.

Second, what they say in their own writings, and in their own
speeches, and to colleagues and friends, contradicts what you claim
they said to Sunderland. Furthermore, eveyone else in their
profession agrees that the facts are otherwise than what you tell me
Sunderland has them saying.

Third, these scientists are being called liars, for the first time in
their professional careers. These are men who have risen to the top
in a field that prizes scrupulous, painful honesty.  That's big
stuff: there have been Congressional investigations into smaller
things. [Literally. I am referring to a lady scientist accused of
altering some numbers in her own lab notebook.]

Fourth, famous Creationists have been caught in outright stupidities,
distortions, untruths and lies.  Frequently. In their public
speeches. In their books. On their own TV shows.  I, personally, have
witnessed numerous untruths on the local Creationist TV show.  Quite
simply, when a famous Creationist says something, I have every reason
to doubt his word. 

-- 
Don		D.C.Lindsay 	Carnegie Mellon Computer Science
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 18:39:06 GMT

In article <1992Apr11.115009.893@desire.wright.edu>, sbishop@desire.wright.edu
writes:
> In article <4658@cluster.cs.su.oz.au>, andrewt@cluster.cs.su.oz.au (Andrew
Taylor) writes:
> > In the discussion of Woolly Mammoth's cold adaption several comparisons
> > have been made to the African Elephant. Some have called it a tropical
> > animal. This is misleading. Until recently elephants occupied all of
Africa,
> > except some desert regions, utilising habitats from rainforest to
semi-deserts.
> > 
> > Its gets quite cool in the southern tip of South Africa and also in the
> > high mountain regions such as Mt Kenya and the Virungas. Elephants occupy
> > both these regions. 
> > 
> > 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

  Also keep in mind that all but two died.

                                -Kurt
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: jloucks@uts.amdahl.com (Jim Loucks)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Darwin's Enigma
Date: 14 Apr 92 16:46:23 GMT
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock) writes:

>In article <387s02rJc9fU00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com>, jloucks@uts.amdahl.com (Jim
>Loucks) writes:
>> For myself, after hearing Morris' response, I've come to the conclusion
>> that Morris didn't communicate his motives well enough for the audience
>> to understand what he was trying to say.

>   His motives were irrelevant.  His butchering of someone else's material
>to completely reverse the meaning is _not_ a proper way to show "some
>scientists think there are problems...".  Jim, you are rationalizing away
>a knowing, intentional lie by one of your allies.

In my opinion, motives are never irrelevant and I'm surprised anyone
would think otherwise.

Morris was making a point but didn't communicate it well, and I
misunderstood what he was saying. Big whoop, it happens. To charge
that Morris intentionally lied is improper as it is to say that I've 
rationalized the situation. I felt pretty small after posting the
article and causing such a ruckus, now, with comments such as yours,
I believe such feelings were wasted.

>   It is inconcievable that someone could so carefully invert the meaning 
>of a passage "by accident" no matter what their motives.  The ICR is a 
>bunch of lying, cheating, assholes and you've decided that your beliefs 
>are so important to you you would rather accept a halfassed nonexplaination
>than face the truth.

If I were you, I'd be careful not to be guilty of libel. I should
probably send this to the ICR and see what their lawyers have to 
say about it.

>   You've let me down, Jim.  I thought your sense of justice might lead you
>out of the snake pit you're in, but instead you've decided you _like_ kissing
>cobras.

What can I say, Dan? In chasing the truth I'm bound to run across
opposition for one reason or another.

>Disgusted Dan
>Danwell@IASTATE.EDU
 
-- 
Jim Loucks           jloucks@uts.amdahl.com 
{apple, pyramid, sun, uunet}!amdahl!jloucks
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: salem@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Bruce Salem)
Subject: Re: Darwin's Enigma
Organization: DSG, Stanford University
Date: 16 Apr 92 01:41:44 GMT

alc@netcom.com (Chris Stassen) writes:

>How did geologists, in the days when they couldn't
>have been biased by acceptance of evolution, order the geologic
>column in exactly the same order that is accepted today?

	Yeah, Faunal Sucession was recognized long before any
ideas about organic evolution were voiced. I recall that FS was
used an emperical generalization in the Eighteenth Century.

>> I have a question though: Who validates the geologic column? 

>It sounds like you are asking for the name of a person, and I
>am not sure what you mean by "validates."  Could you please
>clarify?

	He wants it in Holy Writ :-), forgetting the whole
scientific process, uncertianties and all! He needs to know
about the discipline called stratigraphy.

>Quaternary:	  90-95% of fossil shells identical to modern species
>Late Tertiary:	  35-50% of fossil shells identical to modern species
>Middle Tertiary:  17% of fossil shells identical to modern species
>Early Tertiary:	   3.5% of fossil shells identical to modern species

>Clearly, the ordering of the geologic column by these creationists is
>quite convenient to the ordering required by evolution.  It is also
>hard to explain these results in terms of "hydrological sorting"
>(they're all just shells) during the tail end of the flood.

	The above was known before 1860. The Systems, were well
recognized long before that.

Bruce Salem
From: jloucks@uts.amdahl.com (Jim Loucks)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Darwin's Enigma
Date: 13 Apr 92 18:17:56 GMT
Distribution: world,local
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

I wrote:
>>This book (Darwin's Enigma) presents the substance of these 
>>interviews through the use of short excerpts and summaries of the
>>replies to the questions. Anyone, however, can gain access to the 
>>original typed verbatim interview transcripts which were prepared
>>for the New York State Education Department by going to any public
>>library in the United States and asking for the ERIC Document 
>>Reproduction Service microfiche ED 228 056, Darwin's Enigma: The
>>Fossil Record.

lippard@milori.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) writes:
>And this should most certainly be done, as Sunderland is of questionable
>trustworthiness (or should I say "was," since he's dead now).

This is all I was attempting to communicate, that is, that the original      	
transcripts are available for your perusal. It is my opinion, that if
I were to get copies of the original transcripts and post excerpts, you
wouldn't believe me. Now, I've shown you that this information is 
available for you to read yourself, and I plan on checking it out too.
If Sunderland's claims are true, we'll see in the original transcripts
that some evolutionary scientists speak differently behind closed doors. 

-- 
Jim Loucks           jloucks@uts.amdahl.com 
{apple, pyramid, sun, uunet}!amdahl!jloucks
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: robd@cray.com (Robert Derrick)
Subject: Re: Darwin's Enigma
Date: 16 Apr 92 10:40:23 CDT

Jim Loucks           jloucks@uts.amdahl.com 
: Doesn't this cover all angles in reference to the fossil record,
: and therefore cannot be falsified?

No, this is not the case!

A theory that covers all angles, without contradiction, is known
as a SUPERB theory.  This is precisely what the pursuit of 
knowledge tries to accomplish -- to cover all the angles.

That you fail to understand that simple fact indicates that you
still have the propagandized view of science that religious
dogmatists have been attempting to burn heretics with for
thousands of years.  That you cannot get off of this 'falsify'
kick shows that you are at best bn ICR toady spouting the
current party line.  Satanic Plot out, Paluxy out.  2nd Law,
maybe a few more years.  Falsification; the rubes don't understand
it, milk it for all it's worth.  The arguement using falsification
is just the current Snake Oil in Dr. Henry's Amazing Travelling
ICR Carnival Sideshow.

Now, the inclusion of contradictions is what falsifies a
theory, not completeness.  So what would constitute a contradiction?
How about a human skeleton inside of a dinosaur skeleton?
Better, how about that human holding a tablet with writing on it?
How about a dating method that proves to be extraordinarily
accurate, and dates every existing thing on earth to less than
ten thouand years?  Good grief, I can play this game all day and
not run out of examples; how is it that you all are having trouble
coming up with one?

rob 'just tired' derrick

PS: just to make this clear.

	PE does not contradict Grad'ism.  That would only happen if one
of the other were to make the claim of being absolute.  Which neither one
does.  The big question is not which one is true, but rather how much
is each one true (keeping in mind that there may a third, or a fourth, or...
nth contender for a piece of the pie).
From: jloucks@uts.amdahl.com (Jim Loucks)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Darwin's Enigma
Date: 16 Apr 92 19:18:32 GMT
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

shafto@ils.nwu.edu (Eric Shafto) writes:
I wrote:
>> The
>> evidence for punctuated equilibria is a lack of transitional
>> fossils,

>A *relative* lack -- fewer than might be expected from a gradualistic
>theory.  Your theory predicts a *total* lack -- none.  Do you see the
>difference?  It is not the first time that you have used this sleazy
>trick of confusing the two.

C'mon Eric, it wasn't a sleazy trick, not even close. What's 
happening is complete confusion, I'm answering from by bias and 
you're answering from yours. Confusion starts when we begin to 
include parts of our own bias with parts of anothers.

>Ah, then it will be easily answered.  A created fossil will start
>appearing at the moment of creation in the fossil record.

Similar to the Cambrian explosion? 

>We never should have sent Loucks back to the ICR to find out about
>their lies.  They've brainwashed him again, and it will probably take
>months of this &*#$%@ before he starts to question again. 

Don't you hate it when that happens? 

-- 
Jim Loucks           jloucks@uts.amdahl.com 
{apple, pyramid, sun, uunet}!amdahl!jloucks
From: lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: The Myth Of Morality
Date: 13 Apr 92 15:19:15 GMT
Organization: City University, London

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.


--
Lionel Tun   (lionel@cs.city.ac.uk)
Vision Group, City University, London, EC1V 0HB. 071-477 8000 x 3889
From: Arno.Wouters@phil.ruu.nl (Arno Wouters)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: big fungus again
Date: 9 Apr 92 14:23:52 GMT
Followup-To: talk.origins
Organization: Dept. of Philosophy, Utrecht University, The Netherlands

In article <83492@bu.edu>, colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby) wrote:
> 
> 
> In this weeks Nature, researchers report finding a single fungal 
> organism that spans at least 15 hectares, weights 10,000+ kg and 
> is 1500 years old. The fungus was found in a hardwood forest in
> northern Michigan. 
> 	
> REFERENCE
> Smith, et. al., 1992, The fungus _Armillaria bulbosa_ is among
> the largest and oldest living organisms, Nature 356: 428-431
> 

I have always thought that April Fools day was a piece of Dutch 
folklore. It now seems to grow rank in the States!