HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun)
Subject: Re: Evolution implied by the Bible
Organization: City University, London
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 93 16:43:48 GMT

In article <watson.728093339@mariner.sce.carleton.ca> watson@sce.carleton.ca (Stephen Watson) writes:
>cotera@woods.ulowell.edu writes:
>>However here is the Theory of Creationism in a nutshell: God created the
>>universe.
>>--Ray Cote
>
>Thank you, Ray.  Did you intend that as a scientific statement, or a
>theological one?  
>
>If the latter, I have no quarrel with it.  In fact, I even agree with
>you!  
>
>If the former, then please propose a test for it.  Just for starters,
>how does it account for the 2.7 Kelvin background radiation?  Does it
>arise from a natural process set in motion by God at the instant of
>Creation?  Or did God just put it there to deceive unbelievers and
>back-sliders like myself into concocting some theory about a Big Bang
>in order that we could escape our moral responsibility to God and
>indulge in drugs, sex, murder, left-wing politics, movies, dancing,
>failing to signal turns, not cutting the lawn, forgetting to add
>fabric softener to the rinse cycle, and other such heinous sins, to
>our heart's content?

There is some truth in this. After all, if Jesus were to come to
you in physical form and tell you to follow Him, you might
complain that you had no free will in the matter, you could
not choose _not_ to believe. The point is you do have complete
freedom of choice, and the opportunity has been given for you
to not believe.

--
  ________  Lionel Tun, lionel@cs.city.ac.uk  ________
 / /_  __/\       Computer Vision Group      /\ \__  _\
/___/_/_/\/ City University, London EC1V 0HB \ \___\_\_\
\___\_\_\/        071-477 8000 ext 3889       \/___/_/_/
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Who is Christian - a simple answer
Date: 25 Jan 93 23:53:25 GMT
Organization: sgi
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <1k18seINN3d1@dmsoproto.ida.org>, rlg@omni (Randy garrett) writes:
|> : You appear to have neglected the possibility that he sincerely
|> : believed he was divine, but was mistaken.    That makes him a
|> : person in error, not a liar.    It also makes him no hypocrite,
|> X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
|> 
|> This is a good argument and I agree with many of your points.
|> There are indeed many people walking around today claiming to
|> be divine, whom I would not characterize as crazy (Looney, yes;
|> clinically crazy, probably not).
|> 
|> : 
|> : That only shows how silly *you* are.   If someone says we are to
|> : forgive our enemies, and also holds some nutty theological ideas,
|> : you're going to "put no credence" in forgiving your enemies?
|> : 
|> 
|> And even clocks that are stopped have the right time twice
|> a day (provided they're not on military time).  Anyone can
|> accidentally be right.  The problem is, why should I believe
|> what they say. 

I didn't say that you *should* believe what they say.   I said
that their nuttiness in a particular area is not evidence that
you can generalise to everything they say.

|>              Since a large portion of Jesus's pronouncements
|> are predicated on His divinity, He may (as you say) be accidentally
|> right from time to time, but how can I know which times are right
|> and which aren't.

What do you mean when you say "accidentally" right?   If you think
that X pronouncement is based in claims of divinity, adn you don't
beleive his claims of divinity - and neither do I, by the way - 
then disbelieve what you think needs a claim to divinity to make 
it true.

For the rest, he's as qualified to have an opinion as are the
rest of us.   The fact that he may have claimed divinity has little
to do with his moral lessons, for example.

|>                  To go back to the myriad of people claiming
|> to be divine, and also making lots of concommitant claims as a
|> result -- I don't pay much attention to them either.  Maybe,
|> you're right and I am just being silly ...

You are if you disbelieve them on some topic unrelated to
these claims.

|> 
|> : 
|> : |> 
|> : |> Or 
|> : |>   We're in a heap of trouble if what He claimed was true ...
|> : 
|> : You mean you can speak for him?   Now who's the nut?
|> 
|> Only in the respect that I can repeat what is said in the Bible.
|> This appears to be the most reliable source of what Jesus says.

Yeah, well we all know that what the Bible says doesn't matter a
row of beans.   That's why we need a thousand and three different
churches to interpret it for us.

jon.
From: swf@tools3teradata.com (Stan Friesen)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: They want to debate Phillip Johnson
Date: 28 Jan 93 18:40:32 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <1jvlmpINNl54@fido.asd.sgi.com>, livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
|> 
|> I have always said, and I believe that at one time or another I've
|> seen most of the posteres here say, that evolutionary theories are
|> not statements about philosophical "truth" but are models that fit
|> or don't fit the data.   That being so, they are *always* open to
|> new data, doubt and debate.

Quite so.

And in fact I have publically, in this forum, stated at least one line of
evidence that, if it came to be, would cause me to re-evaluate my avcceptance
of Darwinian evolution.

Of course this is really of no help to the Creationists, since the alternate
theory I would then switch to is *also* an old Earth theory, involving
common ancestry for all (or most) living things on Earth.

-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: russpj@microsoft.com (Russ Paul-Jones)
Subject: Re: Supernaturalistic Science
Date: 27 Jan 93 00:26:29 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <162510d23@ofa123.fidonet.org> Dr.Pepper@f241.n103.z1.fidonet.org writes:
> > From: russpj@microsoft.com (Russ Paul-Jones)
> > Message-ID: <1993Jan21.225724.19434@microsoft.com>
>
> > 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.

OK, is this a pretty standard supernaturalistic scientific explanation?  If 
so, I'll add it to my description of sn science.  Some followup questions 
for any sn scientists out there:

1.	Are the weak nuclear force and the strong nuclear force also
	considered related only as expressions of God's will?

2.	How about electricity and magnetism?  Do sn scientists accept
	Maxwell's equations?

-Russ Paul-Jones
russpj@microsoft.com
From: bvickers@valentine.ics.uci.edu (Brett J. Vickers)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Ray Cote's funny Arkeology
Date: 26 Jan 93 23:00:44 GMT
Organization: Univ. of Calif., Irvine, Info. & Computer Sci. Dept.

If it wasn't such a condemnation of education in America, Ray Cote's
rationalization of the problems with Noah's Ark would be more amusing.
But, as it stands, it's just depressing.  Whenever he is confronted
with a plain impossibility (eg. all parasites known to man living in
such a limited number of animals, the lack of seaworthiness of such a
large wooden ship, the lack of meat for carnivores or of food for
animals with special diets to eat -- I wonder if the koalas came to
Noah with eucalyptus trees attached to their backs -- or the
appearance and disappearance of enough water to flood the entire
earth), he answers "Gee, God must have done it."  The other
impossibilities he just ignores.  There's scientific creationism for
you in a nutshell.

Can we finally close the book on scientific creationism now?

Oh Ray, what do you want to know about the Cambrian explosion?  What
it is?

--
Brett J. Vickers
bvickers@ics.uci.edu
From: onar@hsr.no (Onar Aam)
Subject: Re: Has Macro-evolution Occured?
Organization: Rogaland University Centre
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 16:49:49 GMT

>In article <1993Jan23.233659.24533@microsoft.com>, russpj@microsoft.com (Russ Paul-Jones) writes: 
>> Human embryos develop gill-slits at an early stage, later to lose them.
>
>It's my understanding that evolutionists no longer view this as evidence for
>evolution.
>--Ray Cote

What I think you are referring to is the theory (I don't recall its name) on the
developemental stages of the embryo. It stated that the embryo goes roughly
through all the early stages of evolution. It starts of as a single-celled
organism, continues through the fish stage etc. until it reaches the "highest"
level, humans. (it was then widely misbelieved that humans are at the top of the
evolutionary hill) This theory was used to explain Down's Syndrome. Whites were
considered (by whites of course!) to be above other human races in the 
evolutionary line. And people with Down's Syndrome, who developed some typical
Mongolian traits, were believed to have stagnated in their developement and had
stopped at a lower evolutionary level. It was believed that greater mental
retardation would make you black or a chimp. It was also speculated on whether
this explained the birth of mythical monsters who resembled wolves and the like. 
In hindsight it is easy to see how racial beliefs influenced the scientific
theories. But greater understanding on evolutionary divergence and the
hierarchical, tree-structured arangement of evolutionary descent has long since
refuted these theories. 

HOWEVER, as Chris wrote, the earlier stages of developement in an embryo is more
"immune" to changes than the latter stages. This is because a change in the
developement system will lead to *divergence* from the original organism. The
earlier a change occurs, the more the descendent will diverge from the original.
Now, ordinary probability theory tells us that it much more likely that a large
change will be unsuccessful than a small change. Therefore it is much more likely
that changes will occur in the latter stages of developement rather than in the
earlier stages. Hence the earlier stages will be better preserved in all
organisms than the latter stages. And in general, closely related species will
diverge at a later stage of developement than not so closely related species. A
good example of this is the human-chimp relation. In the sixth week after
conception the chimp- and the human embryo are virtually identical. (I am no
expert on this but I am sure someone can confirm it). This implies a close
relation between the two, which is confirmed palaentologically and genetically. 




Onar.
From: swf@tools3teradata.com (Stan Friesen)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Has Macro-evolution Occured?
Date: 29 Jan 93 00:26:44 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <1993Jan25.145853.1@woods.ulowell.edu>, cotera@woods.ulowell.edu writes:
|> In article <1993Jan23.233659.24533@microsoft.com>, russpj@microsoft.com (Russ Paul-Jones) writes: 
|> > Human embryos develop gill-slits at an early stage, later to lose them.
|> 
|> It's my understanding that evolutionists no longer view this as evidence for
|> evolution.

Well, you are wrong.  What is passe is the naive interpretation of this as
represented by the old phrase "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny".

One of the later points in Chris Colby's post on this subject has the modern
formulation of this.  (It is longer, and somewhat less memorable, but still
pretty much accepted).

That is it is no longer argued that the form of the gill slits in human embryos
relates to the form of the gill slits in the adult ancestors of humans.  But
embryonic gill slits are taken as evidence that our ancestors had gill slits.
[Gill slits are a rather idiotic way to make ears and a larynx - not to mention
the silliness of having six, when only two or three are actually used - this
is an example of the ad hocery in design that Chris Colby also mentions in
his post].

-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: isaak@aurora.com (Mark Isaak)
Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
Reply-To: isaak@aurora.com (Mark Isaak)
Organization: The Aurora Group
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 93 15:07:35 GMT

In article <1993Jan22.171150@IASTATE.EDU> kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:
>In article <1jpmv9INN272@dmsoproto.ida.org>, rlg@omni (Randy garrett) writes:
>> Hmm, if you can't prove anything, how can you disprove anything?
>
>  The button on the table in front of me is unmarked.  I hypothesize that
>pressing it will cause the Earth to explode.  [presses button]  The Earth did
>not explode.  I have disproven the hypothesis.
>
>  My hypothesis is now that it will call up the process list.  [presses button] 
[process list appears]
>it did call up the process list.  Does this prove that my hypothesis is correct?
>No, it only proves that it is better than my hypothesis that it causes the Earth
>to explode.  Only by repeated testing can I reduce the thousands of hypothesis
>down to only a narrow range.

You're missing an important distinction.  If your hypothesis was that
pressing the button once would call up the process list, I would say you
did prove the hypothesis.  If, however, you had made the more useful
hypothesis that pressing the button would *always* call up the process
list, then, as you say, you have only provided evidence that your
hypothesis is correct.  You couldn't prove such a hypothesis unless
you could push the button an infinite number of times.
-- 
Mark Isaak           "Every generation thinks it has the answers, and every
isaak@aurora.com      generation is humbled by nature." - Philip Lubin
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: bobsarv@microsoft.com (Bob Sarver)
Subject: Question for Young Earthers			
Date: 28 Jan 93 03:21:18 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.
Distribution: usa



Okay, here it is:

According to the young earth theory, the planet has been around for
anywhere from 6,000 to 10,000 years (depending on your favorite flavor
of the theory).  Presumably, then, dinosaur bones and fossils are remnants
of the pre-Flood world.  Same for things like pterodactyls, mammoths,
saber-tooth cats, etc.

We have dinosaur fossils; petrified dinosaur eggs, entire skeletons of
petrified dinosaurs (and trees, for that matter).  Yet there are no
occurrences of petrified ancient mammals.  No stone mammoth skeletons,
no stone smilodons, nothing of the kind.  

What we do have, although, is frozen wooly mammoths in Alaska and Siberia.
And real bone / fur remnants from tar pits.  There are, however, no frozen 
Triceratops, no frozen Apatosaurs, no frozen reptiles.  

QUESTION:  if these animals were all from the pre-flood era and alive at the
same time, then one would expect to find petrified versions of both the 
reptiles and the mammals (since they were all destroyed by the Flood).
  
And, one would also expect to find frozen versions of both the reptiles and 
the mammals.  What we have instead, though, appears to be an indication of 
extreme age (fossils), and a graduated scale of evolution (mammals).



Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: lindsay+@cs.cmu.edu (Donald Lindsay)
Subject: Re: Topic for Discussion?
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 23:36:29 GMT

philjohn@garnet.berkeley.edu (Phillip Johnson) writes:
>I am not sure that it is possible to hold a discussion in this
>group, because the majority of participants seem to consider the
>neo-Darwinian theory to be so obviously true that doubt is not
>taken seriously.

Not at all. I consider it to be a truly excellent theory, based on a
dramatically large body of evidence. However, the scientific
community is forever arguing the validity and relevance of the
individual pieces of evidence.  (Feel free to chip away at the
edifice yourself.) Further, evolution is falsifiable, in the sense
that I can describe evidence which (if found) would cause me to
reject evolution.

Can you say the same about your beliefs? By the way, what are they?
Am I correct in thinking that you believe in an old earth, and common
descent, but with divine intervention to guide evolution?

>I would say that it is reasonable for a well-informed observer to
>conclude that macroevolution (i.e. the creative process that
>produced complex plants and animals in the first place) is not 
>"cumulative microevolution" (i.e. the peppered moth example writ
>large over geological time).

That's reasonable, but there are good arguments that it's wrong.

For one, we know of no bar, no limit, that should stop small changes
from accumulating. Examining a fly, we find all of the necessary
mechanisms to be (say) a giraffe. Nothing is missing, really, except
some "programming". The basic mechanism is there to build any
chemicals that are in a giraffe, or do the timing involved in fetal
development.

This reduces your point to a question about *information*. Do you
agree, or object?


-- 
Don		D.C.Lindsay	Carnegie Mellon Computer Science
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Topic for Discussion?
Date: 22 Jan 93 22:59:49 GMT
Organization: sgi
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <1jo29o$srt@agate.berkeley.edu>, philjohn@garnet.berkeley.edu (Phillip Johnson) writes:
>
> [material deleted]
>
> 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?  If so,
> why?

I'm honestly puzzled by this remark.    You've composed a highly
qualified and carefully hedged position, and then said that it's
"your impression" that many paricipants would find it unreasonable
or reprehensible.   On what evidence is that your impression?

jon.
From: rowe@pender.ee.upenn.edu (Mickey Rowe)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
Date: 25 Jan 93 23:50:06 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <1k182mINN3d1@dmsoproto.ida.org> rlg@omni 
     (Randy garrett) writes:

>I'm familiar with Sir Karl  [Popper]

From your previous writings, that wasn't at all clear.

>I'm a physicist, so we tend to define terms more precisely.

Really?  Would you care to support that statement?  My hypothesis at
this point is that your statement is one of pure bigotry arising, in
part, from an ignorance of biology.  I'd be much obliged if you would
falsify that hypothesis in future writings.

>  I'll stick by my definition of a fact.  Facts and theories are two
>quite different things.  See my related post on this thread.

Yes, let's see that post.  You said (in article
<1k17i4INN3d1@dmsoproto.ida.org>):

}Well, you proved a negative hypothesis.  I am considered terms in
}a little more mathematically rigorous fashion than is perhaps
}common and this may be the cause of some miscommunications.

Do *you* think that *any* scientists accurately uses the word "prove"
in the sense that mathematicians use the word?  

and you also wrote:

}I would call a fact an individually observable, independently
}verifiable piece of information.  A theory is more a model that
}attempts to the facts.

In your "precise" definitions, is the statement:

The earth revolves around the sun.

a fact or a theory?  

and:

}I believe my definition of species is a pretty commonly accepted one.

Well, let's just go see about that.  You wrote:

>There seems to be some disagreement among posters of this thread
>about exactly how many instances of speciation has really been
>observed. ...

and then asked:

>If the plant species were really that similar, is there, perhaps a
>possibility that the taxonomic classifications are in error?

If you are using the "commonly accepted" definition of the word
"species", does your question make even a tiny amount of sense?  Since
you've now been told that the plants in question are no longer
interfertile with their parent populations, will you accept that
speciation has occurred?  

>Randy G.

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

P.S.  If you *really* want to observe speciation yourself, I suggest
that you take up the hobby of breeding whiptailed lizards.  Get some
from the genus _Cnemidophorus_, and house different species together
for a while.  You should get some interesting results within your
lifetime.
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: Reality and the Merrit FAQ (2 of 4)
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 13:42:48 GMT

In article <237@fedfil.UUCP> news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
}In article <1763@tdat.teradata.COM>, swf@tools3teradata.com (Stan Friesen) writes:
}^In article <211@fedfil.UUCP>, news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
}  
}^|> ^ 	When the poster posts an article a second time without reguard to
}^|> ^ any of the criticisms or errors discovered in the original post by other
}^|> ^ members of t.o, then he (or she) is indeed a liar because the person is
}^|> ^ posting material containing known errors.  
} 
}^|> This then is the rationale for Merrrrrittttt, Frog, Rufus Day, and all the
}^|> others to calling me, Bob Bales, and others liars.  This then is the
}^|> state to which scientific debate in America has sunk.
}
}^Yep, the definition of a liar is one who states something known to be false.
}^When you repost verbatim material that has been shown to be incorrect you are
}^indeed being a liar (since you have been given every opportunity to discover
}^that what you are saying is false).  To avoid this you must either correct the
}^errors or provide acceptible evidence that your material is not in error.
}
}I have provided such evidence over and over again, and adequately refuted all
}of the counterclaims being made by yourself and others.  Nonetheless, you and
}others simply go on posting the same tired old rubbish;  obviously, by your
}own standards, you and a number of the others are lairs.

False.  No refudiation (that I am aware of) of any of the physics, biology,
chemistry,.... or any of the other h ard sciences has even been presented
by you.  "It's magic" (or the equivalent) does not consist of such.
From: rh@smds.com (Richard Harter)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Topic for Discussion?
Date: 25 Jan 93 07:31:20 GMT
Reply-To: rh@ishmael.UUCP (Richard Harter)
Organization: Software Maintenance & Development Systems, Inc.

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.

Maybe.
-- 
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.