HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Dr.Pepper@f241.n103.z1.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Duane T. Gish, Ph. D.
X-Sender: newtout 0.06 Jan  3 1993
Date: 25 Jan 93  12:33:00

 > From: trott@remus.rutgers.edu (Rich Trott)
 > Message-ID: <Jan.21.21.49.24.1993.23599@remus.rutgers.edu>
 > Newsgroups: talk.origins


 > Could someone please give me information on Dr. Duane T. Gish.

Gish is pretty well covered in the book "Scientists Confront Creationism".

+--------------------------+--------------------------------------+
| 10                    2  | Garden Grove Institute of Technology |
|        DR PEPPER         | Community Outreach Center            |
|                       4  |                                      |
+--------------------------+ Snail Addr: Unit #1, 7872 Trask      |
| The best thing about     |             Westminster, Ca  92683   |
| voting Republican is it  | Modem:      714-894-7039             |
| feels so good when you   | Fidonet:    1:103/241                |
| stop.                    | Candynet:   42:1001/1                |
|                          | Internet:   Dr.Pepper@f241.n103.z1   |
| Ah-- You listened!       |              .fidonet.org            |
+--------------------------+--------------------------------------+

---
From: brinkman@si151a.llnl.gov
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Possibility of Colby vs. Johnson (was Re: SWAA Lecture)
Date: 22 Jan 93 17:10:58 GMT


   In article <105777@netnews.upenn.edu> rowe@pender.ee.upenn.edu 
(Mickey Rowe) writes...

> Point of order.  I find it more than a little annoying that you're
> [Phillip Johnson] willing to take swipes at material of which you've
> demonstrated no understanding.  I for one (and I encourage others to cast
> votes here) would be pleased if you considered this forum to be a public
> debate between you and Chris Colby (i.e. you can overcome your numerical
> disadvantage by choosing only one of us to whom you will respond).

   Since Mickey has encouraged voting, I would second his motion.  To date,
we have Prof. Jonson providing only a single response to any questions/
comments/criticism of (as I count) three rather lengthy posts.  To be
completely honest, I am having a hard time reconciling this "pop-up, post,
and ignore responses" gambit with Prof. Johnson's repeated claim that he
is seeking to establish a dialog.

> The topic of the debate might be: Does Phillip Johnson understand
> evolutionary biology well enough to make him a worthwhile critic?
> (Please suggest your own topics until you and Chris can agree on one.)

   IMHO, a better topic would be the one Chris has already suggested--
"Is _Darwin On Trial_ a sound book?"  Chris, why don't you start?  Treat
your comments as an extended review of Prof. Johnson's book.  This would be
a thread that is directly related to the objectives of talk.origins.  That
way, even if Prof. Johnson, as the author, is unwilling/unable to respond to
your criticisms, the signal-to-noise ratio in talk.origins will improve, and
you may help the book buying public in deciding on how to spend their money
wisely.

> A very close second choice for me would be if you decided to continue
> your dialog with Matt Brinkman.  (Sorry Matt, but I'm more interested
> in science than theology...)

   Why you...you...you infidel.  This clearly shows that you are a pawn of
the Anglo-American Cultural Imperialist heirarchy.   Ooooo...this gets me
so steamed.  8^}

   Don't worry Mickey, that's A-OK by me.  I think a Colby vs. Johnson
debate would be the most interesting show to hit the t.o. airwaves since the
Colby vs. Everybody debate on "Whether humans are still evolving?"

> Mickey Rowe     (rowe@pender.ee.upenn.edu)

--
Matt Brinkman
brinkman@edseq1.llnl.gov
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: For-sale ads on sci.math??
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 01:53:00 GMT
Organization: The Language Game Inc.
Followup-To: talk.origins

In article <LFkVXB1w165w@kalki33.lakes.trenton.sc.us>,
system@kalki33.lakes.trenton.sc.us (Kalki Dasa) wrote:
> Same Kalki. However, there is no comparison between my activities and
> those of someone who posts an advertisement whose sole purpose is to
> sell his personal property. You are making as much of this as you can,
> according to your demoniac nature. But I am innocent and free from all
> hypocrisy in this matter. Take your best shots, demons!

Why did I think of this Nietzsche cite: "Battle not with the beasts,
least you will become one"?

Kent
---
sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND
Private activities on the Net, opinions are not Apple's, they are mine.
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Come on Mr. Johnson
Date: 24 Jan 93 19:54:44 GMT
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks

In article <15kTXB3w165w@kalki33.lakes.trenton.sc.us>,
system@kalki33.lakes.trenton.sc.us (Kalki Dasa) writes:
> Speaking in support of Dr. Johnson, I can say that it is very definitely
> useful to me. I do not mind reading what someone has to say, especially
> someone who has the mettle to question something as phony as Darwinism.
> So here's my vote:
> 
> Dr. Johnson: please post as often as you wish. I will read every word
> with interest, and I will never demand that you engage in any useless
> arguments with me. I'm sure there are others who feel the same way. We
> are glad to have another articulate voice speaking against this nonsense
> of "scientific" materialism.

 Two paragraphs above Read: We Kalkii could not even aproach the amount
                            of information level in your postings.  Ever
                            since we made a fool of ourselves earlier we
                            have been hoping someone who knew what they
                            were talking about came along.  Please, oh
                            please, ignore everything they say, or you may
                            concede they are right on some point.

      -------------------------------------------------------------
     |                  Don't forget to chant:                     |
     |                                                             |
     | You have freed me from the lamp.  What is your wish master? |
     | Oh no you don't.  The treasure is mine all mine! Get back!  |
     | You have desecrated the spirit of the lamp! Prepare to face |
     |                                           the conscequences |
     | Conscequences, schmonscequences.  As long as I'm rich.      |
     |                                                             |
     |          Kurt's disInfoline BBS Ames, Iowa, USA             |
     |           Conspiring against you for 110 years              |
      -------------------------------------------------------------
From: amorgan@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Crunchy Frog)
Subject: Re: Muscle tissue from mouse to sauropod
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 07:59:07 GMT

In article <243@fedfil.UUCP> news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:

>If Kaz couldn't stand in our gravity at 70,000 lbs, then neither could a
>sauropod dinosaur.

If Kaz can't high jump 8 feet than neither can anything else (except
maybe a Cuban).  If Kaz can't long jump over 29 feet then neither can
anything else (sorry Powell).  If Kaz can't run 100m in 9.86 seconds and
do a flying 100 in 8.8 then neither can anything else (bummer Carl).
 
>Ted Holden
>HTE
(His Tired Excuses)

C Frog
FCE
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: watson@sce.carleton.ca (Stephen Watson)
Subject: Re: Evolution on Christian TV
Organization: Carleton University
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 22:35:23 GMT

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

Yes, Ray, that's very interesting.  Fascinating even.  Uh, did you
have a point you wished to make from this?  Say, that this is evidence
against evolution, and for creation?  Every few months I see a poll
that some high percentage of Americans think that the Sun goes round
the Earth, or some such nonsense.  Is this evidence against the
heliocentric model of the solar system?  No, it's merely evidence that
the American public is appallingly ignorant of basic science.

In defense of the average Yank, I suppose that her/his ignorance is
merely due to poor schooling, and too much TV.  Presumably, if you
gave her/him a reason to think the subject important, or as
interesting as _The_Simpsons_, he/she would quickly learn proper
astronomy and biology.

This puts her/him a point up on you, Ray.  Sorry to be blunt, but
*your* ignorance appears to be deliberate, well-studied, impervious to
influence by facts, and an accomplishment of which you are quite
proud.

And, as for Gallup as an arbiter of Truth, I wonder what percentage of
Americans think that fundamentalism is a load of hogwash?  If it were,
say, >50% would you abandon your faith?
--
| Steve Watson a.k.a. watson@sce.carleton.ca === Carleton University, Ontario |
|  this->opinion = My.opinion;  assert (this->opinion != CarletonU.opinion);  |
"Somebody touched me / Making everything new / Burned through my life / Like a
 bolt from the blue / Somebody touched me / I know it was you" - Bruce Cockburn
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: pduggan@world.std.com (Paul C Duggan)
Subject: Re: They want to debate Phillip Johnson
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 22:49:07 GMT

In article <1993Jan24.134326@IASTATE.EDU> kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:
>In article <qXiuXB1w165w@kalki33.lakes.trenton.sc.us>,
>system@kalki33.lakes.trenton.sc.us (Kalki Dasa) writes:
>>The basis of Darwinism is materialism, i.e. the proposition that 
>>there is nothing in existence except matter and material energy, and 
>>nothing ever influences matter except other matter or material energy.
>
>  False.
>[...]
>  If you cannot devise a test for these things, then they might as well not
>exist.  What difference does it make?

A test that a scientist would use would be a test involving material energy
or matter, would it not? So how is that you describe the materialist
presupposition of Darwinism as "False"? You seem to be saying the
exact same thing by your request for a material test.

Am I mistaken?

paul duggan
From: rh@smds.com (Richard Harter)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Topic for Discussion?
Date: 26 Jan 93 06:36:16 GMT
Reply-To: rh@ishmael.UUCP (Richard Harter)
Organization: Software Maintenance & Development Systems, Inc.

In article <1k1qapINN2t7@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
>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?

But Jon, you said a great deal more than that.  It was the material
following that (which I quoted in another post) that he was arguing
about, i.e. the implementation of the limit.

-- 
Richard Harter: SMDS Inc.  Net address: rh@smds.com Phone: 508-369-7398 
US Mail: SMDS Inc., PO Box 555, Concord MA 01742.    Fax: 508-369-8272
In the fields of Hell where the grass grows high
Are the graves of dreams allowed to die.
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: They want to debate Phillip Johnson
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 19:43:26 GMT

In article <qXiuXB1w165w@kalki33.lakes.trenton.sc.us>,
system@kalki33.lakes.trenton.sc.us (Kalki Dasa) writes:
>The basis of Darwinism is materialism, i.e. the proposition that 
>there is nothing in existence except matter and material energy, and 
>nothing ever influences matter except other matter or material energy.

  False.

  When you proposed other possible influences you were immediately asked how
they could be tested for.  I can't think of a scientist anywhere who would
hesitate to run any experiments necissary to determine these things.

  Your reply was a subjective test: one that works equally well for detecting
pink elephants.

  If you now know of some objective test, please post it.

  If you cannot devise a test for these things, then they might as well not
exist.  What difference does it make?

 ----------------------------------------------------------------------
|                       Don't forget to chant:                         |
|                                                                      |
| What's the guys name on second base. I'm not asking who's on second. |
|          Who's on first.  I don't know.  Third base.                 |
|                                                                      |
|                Kurt's disInfoline BBS Ames, Iowa                     |
|              Conspiring against you for 110 years.                   |
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: btd@iastate.edu (Benjamin T Dehner)
Subject: Re: Merritt
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 05:51:12 GMT

In <182510d26@ofa123.fidonet.org> Dr.Pepper@f241.n103.z1.fidonet.org writes:

>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!

	I don't know Jim Merritt other than through his postings here, and it's
unlikely that I will ever meet him.  It's even possible that when I do I will
think he is a pompous ass.
	Ass, pompous, or whatever, I have found his postings, while occaision-
ally somewhat long and/or vitrolic, to be logically and scientifically correct.
While occaisionally somewhat simplified, his postings are generally factually
correct, which I hold in higher reguard than his mode of expression.
	When I feel Merritt doesn't speak for me, I'll be sure to let you know.

Ben

"That's the trouble with apothegms.  For all the truth in
them, they are pretentious" -- Wang Laojiu

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin T. Dehner    Dept. of Physics and Astronomy 
btd@iastate.edu       Iowa State University 
                      Ames, IA 50011
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Evolution implied by the Bible
Date: 26 Jan 93 13:59:26 GMT
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA

In article <1993Jan25.144819.1@woods.ulowell.edu> cotera@woods.ulowell.edu writes:
}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.  

Reviewing al the scientific data in support of creationism should take, oh, 20
seconds MAX.

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

Testable how?
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: Dr.Pepper@f241.n103.z1.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Duane T. Gish, Ph. D.
Date: 26 Jan 93 01:20:00 GMT
X-Sender: newtout 0.06 Jan  3 1993


 > From: lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun)
 > Message-ID: <1993Jan25.165508.16938@city.cs>

 > rowe@pender.ee.upenn.edu (Mickey Rowe) writes:
 >>The fossil record leading to the vertebrate grade is pretty sparse,
 >>but the fossil record is sparse for most invertebrates.  Is that
 >>supposed to be a surprise?

 > The fossil record for intermediates is sparse or non existent
 > per se. There is a good reason for this.

Glad to see you're on top of the subject. Now please state the theory of
creationism.

+--------------------------+--------------------------------------+
| 10                    2  | Garden Grove Institute of Technology |
|        DR PEPPER         | Community Outreach Center            |
|                       4  |                                      |
+--------------------------+ Snail Addr: Unit #1, 7872 Trask      |
| The best thing about     |             Westminster, Ca  92683   |
| voting Republican is it  | Modem:      714-894-7039             |
| feels so good when you   | Fidonet:    1:103/241                |
| stop.                    | Candynet:   42:1001/1                |
|                          | Internet:   Dr.Pepper@f241.n103.z1   |
| Ah-- You listened!       |              .fidonet.org            |
+--------------------------+--------------------------------------+

---
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: robd@cherry09.cray.com (Robert Derrick)
Subject: Re: Topic for Discussion?
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: 25 Jan 93 11:41:25 CST

Phillip Johnson (philjohn@garnet.berkeley.edu) wrote:

A paragraph, of which the essential gist is:
: ... the mechanism of macroevolution is an unsolved mystery...

or thereabouts.

: My impression is that many participants in this group think that
: the position stated in the preceding paragraph is unreasonable,
: and even in some sense reprehensible.  Is that correct?

No, as I immediately recognized and knew that the others would
too.  Many of them have now responded.  Others have ho-hum'd it.
None have found it to be what you expected.  Which, I hope, you
will see, is a fundemental problem in your understanding.  That is,
you do not understand the minds, intents, and philosophical
knowledge of the people here as well as you thought you did.

And since that is so, just how much more of what is going on in
the worldwide investigation into these mysteries do you not 
understand?

: If so, why?

Since it is not the case, why?  Because, despite the braying of
our local evangelists, most of us, here and worldwide, have a 
rather open mind to truth.  Of course, sometimes the door gets
a little rusty with disuse, but a new idea, with merit, and
evidence, and data, and replicability, is the goal of most
scientists.  You seem to be saying, close the door and sit in the dark.

Why is it that your book and ideas are so ho-hum?  Because they
offer nothing.  You claim to cast doubt on Evolution, make broad
unsubstantiated claims about it's philosophical implications and
strictures.  But since you have nothing to replace it with, no
matter how much disparity you cast, it remains the best available
theory.  If you don't have a better theory, what do you propose?

All it takes is that better idea.

Got one?

: -- 
: Phillip E. Johnson
:   School of Law, University of California, Berkeley CA 94720
--

rob derrick				robd@cherry.cray.com
From: lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Ideology and Indoctrination
Date: 27 Jan 93 21:59:00 GMT
 <25JAN199322265351@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu> <1993Jan27.103814@IASTATE.EDU>
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1993Jan27.103814@IASTATE.EDU>, danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock) writes...
>   I'm willing to conceede that Baltimore acted like a complete idiot but
>I'm still of the opinion he knew he was accountable.  His error was 
>excessive loyalty.  I'll bet dollars to donughts that Baltimore never looked
>at the evidence against Imanishi-Kari (he sure acted like he didn't) and
>was operating under the assumption that the evidence was fabricated; what
>that lady did was stunningly dishonest and reprehensible; unbelievably so.

Nope, this is incorrect.  Not only was Baltimore present at one or more
meetings at which O'Toole made her case in detail, he continued to
fight her even after Congress got into the act.  He called for the
support of scientists (*and got it!*) after the Dingell hearings were
called.

>   This is a very fine point I'm putting on things though.  It's the 
>difference between thinking you are not accountable and thinking there 
>will never be a need to be held accountable.  Baltimore's arrogance lay 
>in thinking that extremely damning evidence presented by a junior 
>colleage must be false _not_ that damning evidence should be ignored.  He's
>wrong either way - it's just that I've never encountered a scientist who thought
>they were not accountable and I've met many who thought their conduct
>was beyond question, even when it might not be.

I think the record is pretty clear that Baltimore *knew* the fraud had
occurred yet continued to try to prevent it from being made public.  Again,
I recommend Bell's book, _Impure Science_.

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