HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jtisdel@digi.lonestar.org (Michael Tisdel)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Ignoring Facts
Summary: single case
Date: 9 Apr 92 18:40:06 GMT
Organization: DSC Communications Corp, Plano, TX

First off, Ted makes a good presentation.  Now, I do
have a problem with one statement he makes.  He says that
there is a probablility of zero that various cultures
would have similar mythologies.  Specifically, that an
event described by a Meso-American culture and a Mid-eastern
culture around 1500 BC *must* indicate that the said event
occured.

Probability, in this case, doesn't apply.  There are many
similarities in mythologies half a world away, they don't
necessarily prove that something exists.  For example both
the Phoenix and the Thunderbird are reborn in the cataclysmic
destruction of other sleves.  No one, however, states that
such creatures existed.

The point here is that V. wishes to find evidence to support
a cataclysm.  He quickly turns to mythology as evidence.
Von Daniken (sp?) did the same with _Chariots of the Gods_.
In both cases, since the authors are long gone, no exact
interpretation is available and the person citing the mythology
is free to stress his explaination of the 'deep inner meaning'
of the myth.



-- 
 J. Michael Tisdel              | 
 jtisdel@digi.lonestar.org      | "I want to lie, shipwrecked and comatose,
 DSC Communications Corporation |  Drinking fresh mango juice."
 *** Standard Disclaimer ***    |           -- Red Dwarf
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: robd@cray.com (Robert Derrick)
Subject: Re: Examining the evidence for evolution (part 1)
Date: 7 Apr 92 16:32:30 CDT

Loud moan!!!  There is no learning curve here friends.  Bob, Bob, Bob.

You don't understand probabilty, you don't understand (actually - refuse
to understand, but I digress) the principle of accumulation, you don't
understand at all how science works (by your yardstick, Newton's physics
should have been thrown out completely as soon as it was discovered that
it not explain the evidence - lucky for the Apollo project, you weren't
in charge);  but then what's the point of listing your lame, and worse,
just plain boring rehashes and evasions.  You never did answer my simple
question about limits of variation, although you did talk all the way
around it.

:         ...  The scientific conclusion is that, since we don't know if
: evolution is true or false, *we cannot claim definately one way or the other.

Well, let's say this is in some sense true.  We still use it, until a 
better theory comes along, just like we used Newton's until Einstein's,
and Einstein's until Quantum.  s'matter of fact, we still use Newton's,
even though it is "wrong".

So, listen closely:

	THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC THEORY OF CREATION

Nobody really cares about anything you have to say about evolution.

	NOBODY CARES, BOB!!!!

I repeat:

	THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC THEORY OF CREATION

My theory makes a prediction:  BB will ignore this.  What's the
probability of that, BoB?


Hey, Bob, would you care to agree to and endorse this here statement:

lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun) <1992Mar27.132151.3106@city.cs>
  on 27 Mar 92 13:21:51 GMT

As pointed out here before, one way to redress the balance would
be presentation of evidence _for_ creation. I am hoping to
address this area in due course.


rob derrick
From: simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Evolution and God
Keywords: Evolution,proof
Date: 7 Apr 92 15:08:51 GMT
Followup-To: talk.origins
Distribution: talk.origins
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Warwick University, England


[ Note to t.o readers:                                          ]
[ This thread has been running over on sci.skeptic for a while, ]
[ but bearing in mind the content, I thought that t.o would be  ]
[ more appropriate.                                             ]


In article <1992Apr7.133637.21999@bradford.ac.uk>,
K.Haigh-Hutchinson@bradford.ac.uk (K.HAIGH-HUTCHINSON) writes:

> 2) Popular science quotes evolution as a fact. I believe however that the
> relevant specialist divisions discuss the 'Theory of Evolution' as the
> best hypotheses that fits the observed facts. If pure science can not 
> conclusively prove anything then Evolution can not proven conclusively either.
> 
> 3) Evolution and adaptation within species is not under dispute. Iunderstood
> the question to refer to evolution from one species into another. I believe
> the absence of intermediate forms is one reason why the theory remains an
> hypothesis.
>
> Kathy HH


Ooops! Your last comment forces me to post this, and set followups, to
talk.origins. I speak as an "intermediate form", by the way. :-)

Cheers

Simon
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Every morning when you wake up and look in the mirror, check yourself
for signs of collective identity" - Consolidated on "This Is Fascism"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: rdippold@qualcom.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Subject: Re: Ignoring Facts
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 21:16:02 GMT

jtisdel@digi.lonestar.org (Michael Tisdel) writes:
>First off, Ted makes a good presentation.  Now, I do
>have a problem with one statement he makes.  He says that
>there is a probablility of zero that various cultures
>would have similar mythologies. 

And that's obviously BS.  A flood myth is one that you would expect
_most_ cultures to have, because most places experience a flood sooner
or later.

-- 
When you have shot and killed a man you have in some measure clarified your
attitude toward him.  You have given a definite answer to a definite problem.
For better or worse you have acted decisively.  In a way, the next move is up
to him.   -- R. A. Lafferty
From: davew@hp-ptp.ptp.hp.com (Dave Waller)
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 19:48:42 GMT
Subject: Re: largest and oldest organism found?
Organization: HP Pacific Technology Park - Sunnyvale, Ca.
Newsgroups: talk.origins

danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock) writes:
> In article <83423@bu.edu>, news@bu.edu (News Administrator) writes:
> > 1500 years old. The fungus was found in a hardwood forest in
> > northern Michigan. 
> > 	
> > 	That's a big fungus.
> 
>    Since this fungus was the largest found _in the first survey_ _of a limited
> area_ I bet it won't seem so big in 20 years.  If growth rates are fairly
> uniform for mycobehemothic entities we might in fact get a nice new yardstick
> to beat on the creationists with.  Mycochronology?

Added to my dictionary: Mycobehemoth. I can't wait to use that one on
somebody :-)

Dave Waller
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: knightb@knightb@clunker.b21.ingr.com (11642)
Subject: Wallabies (was: Re: Changing your mind)
Organization: Intergraph
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 18:27:32 GMT

In article <1992Mar27.140249.4180@city.cs> lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel
Tun) writes:  (in response to Bruce Salem,  I think)

>This wallably business illustrates how the term species is used
>to support the theory of evolution. Surely a wallaby is still a
>wallaby?

>Lionel Tun

I think something is being illustrated.  Maybe you'd like to 
elaborate.  What makes a wallaby a wallaby?  

Brad
knightb@abulafia.b21.ingr.com
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Darwin's Enigma
Date: 16 Apr 92 04:23:00 GMT
Article-I.D.: skyblu.15APR199221233614
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <0ebs02b=cd5v00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com>, jloucks@uts.amdahl.com (Jim Loucks) writes...
>Any scientist who makes a statement, then denies making that 
>statement is dishonest. I've given you information that you
>can look up for yourself that some scientists are not honest, along
>with their names. Some of these scientists have claimed they were
>misquoted. Well, the original verbatim typed transcripts from tape
>support Sunderland's claims. You (talk.origins) can believe that 
>Sunderland edited the transcripts if you like, you can even believe 
>that he edited the original tape. But don't blame anyone but yourself 
>when it hits the fan.

I suspect that there are probably few, if any, inaccuracies in Sunderland's
transcripts.  I also suspect that when Sunderland represents the transcripts
as evidence that scientists doubt evolution, or know of no transitional
fossils, that he is misrepresenting what is actually said in the transcripts.
Care to offer any counterexamples?  (Preferably from someone *other*
than Colin Patterson.)

>Jim Loucks           jloucks@uts.amdahl.com 
>{apple, pyramid, sun, uunet}!amdahl!jloucks

Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
From: Dr.Pepper@f241.n103.z1.fidonet.org (Dr Pepper)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Does theory of evolution affect beli
Date: Sun, 05 Apr 92 22:04:00 PDT
Organization: FidoNet node 1:103/241 - GG Tech, Westminster CA

 > From: lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun)
 > Newsgroups: talk.origins,talk.religion.misc

 > I apologise for presenting claims unaccompanied by the evidence to back
 > them up. To all those I have offended by not presenting the evidence -
 > my apologies. I retract the offending statements until further notice.
 > If I re present these assertions in the future I will try to have some
 > references handy.

Well done.

+--------------------------+--------------------------------------+
| 10                    2  | Garden Grove Institute of Technology |
|        DR PEPPER         | Community Outreach Center            |
|                       4  |                                      |
+--------------------------+ Snail Addr: Unit #1, 7872 Trask      |
| It's my government, i'll |             Westminster, Ca  92683   |
| badmouth it if i feel    | Modem:      714-894-7039             |
| like it!                 | Fidonet:    1:103/241                |
|                          | Candynet:   42:1001/1                |
|                          | Signet:     26:26/100                |
+--------------------------+--------------------------------------+

--  

Dr Pepper
Internet: Dr.Pepper@f241.n103.z1.fidonet.org
Compuserve: >internet:Dr.Pepper@f241.n103.z1.fidonet.org
From: rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Scientific Storkism
Date: 10 Apr 92 20:42:54 GMT
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA

This hasn't been on for a while...


Ovulation versus cretinism

Two different theories exist concerning the origin of children: the theory of
sexual reproduction, and the theory of the stork. Many people believe in the
theory of sexual reproduction because they have been taught this theory
at school.

In reality, however, many of the world's leading scientists are in
favour of the theory of the stork. If the theory of sexual
reproduction is taught in schools, it must only be taught as a theory
and not as the truth. Alternative theories, such as the theory of the
stork, must also be taught.

Evidence supporting the theory of the stork includes the following:

1. It is a scientifically established fact that the stork does exist.
This can be confirmed by every ornithologist.

2. The alledged human foetal development contains several features
that the theory of sexual reproduction is unable to explain.

3. The theory of sexual reproduction implies that a child is approximately
nine months old at birth. This is an absurd claim. Everyone knows that a
newborn child is newborn.

4. According to the theory of sexual reproduction, children are a result of
sexual intercourse. There are, however, several well documented cases where
sexual intercourse has not led to the birth of a child.

5. Statistical studies in the Netherlands have indicated a positive correlation
between the birth rate and the number of storks. Both are decreasing.

6. The theory of the stork can be investigated by rigorous scientific methods.
The only assumption involved is that children are delivered by the stork.

(Original version by Erkki Aalto, Dept. of Obstetrics, Gynaecology and Stork
Science, University  of Helsinki --- 
English version by Jopi Louko, Institute of Stork Research,
University of Alberta)

-- 
If opportunity came disguised as temptation, one knock would be enough.
From: lief@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Lief Sorensen)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Life without God?
Date: 16 Apr 92 03:10:59 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA

Well, it is almost ten years -- remember?  About 8 years ago I posted a short
blurb about a book titled "SCIENCE ON TRIAL" written by Douglas J. Futuyma.  It
was copyrighted in 1983.

The author is no fan of creationism.  The book goes to great lengths in pre-
senting the viewpoints and case studies of evolution.  The author takes great
pride in his point-by-point refutation of creationism.

Anyway, on page 96 Mr. Futuyma made a claim that I want no one to forget --
especially Mr. Futuyma.

   "The next step in the synthesis of life will be to develop RNA sequences
   that can produce their own replicating enzymes.  This hasn't been done yet,
   but biochemists have made such great progress in this direction that it's
   likely that simple forms of life will be synthesized in the laboratory
   within the next ten years."

   "It is important to realize that although human intelligence is guiding
   such experiments, chemists are not making RNA molecules by carefully
   stringing together nucleotides with sophisticated chemical techniques.
   They are simply providing in the laboratory the chemical and environmental
   conditions that are believed to have existed naturally billions of years
   ago."

Would some die-hard evolutionist like to update me on the status of these
predictions?

This leads me into another issue.  I've asked several of my Christian friends
as well as a couple of my pastors the following question; "If scientists were
to ever create life from non-life in the laboratory, would your faith in God
and the Bible be shaken"?  Would some die-hard creationist like to takle this?

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ Lief Sorensen           lief@hpfclm.fc.hp.com +         --\\\\o___           +
+ Hewlett Packard Co.                           +     --\\\\o___               +
+ Fort Collins, Colorado                        + --\\\\o___      Rev. 14:6-12 +
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From: shafto@ils.nwu.edu (Eric Shafto)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Darwin's Enigma
Date: 17 Apr 92 04:12:05 GMT
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences

jloucks@uts.amdahl.com (Jim Loucks) writes:
> 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.

Very well, then.  I will be happy to stop accusing you of sleaze if
you stop saying that evidence for PE is evidence for Creation because
they both predict a "lack" of transitional fossils.

> >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? 

"Similar" in that there will be many fossils beginning to exist
suddenly.  However, the similarity ends there:

Cambrian expl.                    Genesis
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Some fossils predate it.          No fossils predate it.

(Virtually?) no modern forms      All modern forms present.
present.


They look pretty different, don't they?

> >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. 

*If* he starts to question again...

> Don't you hate it when that happens? 

Yes, it makes me sad and angry.  Sometimes it makes me laugh, but not
very often.


-- 
*Eric Shafto             * The longer I live the more I see I am never    *
*Institute for the       * wrong about anything, and that all the pains I *
*    Learning Sciences   * have so humbly taken to verify my notions have *
*Northwestern University * only wasted my time.          --G. B. Shaw     *
From: rowe@pender.ee.upenn.edu (Mickey Rowe)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: The Ted Badge of Courage
Date: 10 Apr 92 20:12:47 GMT
Reply-To: rowe@pender.ee.upenn.edu (Mickey Rowe)
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <83605@bu.edu> colby@bu-bio.UUCP (Chris Colby) writes:
>In article <1992Apr4.163957.776@desire.wright.edu> sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:

>>Who was it that was called a weaselly little faggot?  
>
>	It was R. Day if I'm not mistaken.

Yes, on a few occasions Ted referred to "Rufus" as a faggot.  Aaah the
good old days :-/

Didn't RPJ say that he was going to come back to the net after he got
settled in his new city?

>Chris Colby	email: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu

Mickey Rowe     (rowe@pender.ee.upenn.edu)
From: shafto@ils.nwu.edu (Eric Shafto)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Single Source versus Dispersed Source Evolutionism
Date: 16 Apr 92 18:35:39 GMT
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences

dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes: > 

> Just curious to know which position the experts today in the Theory
of Evolution happen to take:

Well, they would probably have some informed opinions, but the
question is not strictly about the theory of evolution.  Evolution is
only concerned with what happens after the beginning of life.
However, there are interesting ways to extend it so that it is
suggestive of ways abiogenesis could have taken place.


> Derek.
> 
> 
> PS. Is there an option I should have said, that I forgot?

I would suggest:

j) many different proto-organisms at many varying levels of complexity
   and fitness came into being, possibly with many developing the
   ability to self-replicate.  All current life is descended from one
   of these, which gained some crucial advantage over the others and
   rapidly dominated the world.

and:

k) many different proto-organisms at many varying levels of complexity
   and fitness came into being, possibly with many developing the
   ability to self-replicate.  One or two kooky one-celled animals
   living somewhere in the world are descended from one or another of
   these, with the rest the descendents of only one lineage.

Don't forget that no one is claiming that life came into being in a
single random event.  Life-like qualities (like containment by a
membrane, reproduction, selective incorporation of surrounding
particles, etc.) could have been selected for for millions of years.
-- 
*Eric Shafto             * The longer I live the more I see I am never    *
*Institute for the       * wrong about anything, and that all the pains I *
*    Learning Sciences   * have so humbly taken to verify my notions have *
*Northwestern University * only wasted my time.          --G. B. Shaw     *
From: gmartin@zia.aoc.nrao.edu (George Martin)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Cold-adaption of the African Elephant
Date: 11 Apr 92 23:55:36 GMT
Article-I.D.: zia.1992Apr11.235536.3981
Organization: National Radio Astronomy Observatory, Socorro NM

In article <1992Apr11.133133@IASTATE.EDU> kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:
>
>  In "Mammoths, Mastadonts, and Elephants" they do spend some time talking about
>an african elephant in the Tokyo zoo.  The idea was to compare the efects of the
>(relatively) cold weather in Tokyo with the natural selection that caused the
>Mammoths to appear.  From what I remember, the main points were that much of the
>ears were lost to frostbite.  There was also something about being sick, but the
>basic idea was that if the animal had been in the wild rather than a zoo it
>would most certainly have gone kaput.
>
>  While the morals of the zookeepers could be questioned, the inability of the
>African Elephant to survive in the cold has strong evidence against.
>
>                                    -Kurt


I know it's not, but one can't help wondering if one of the zoo
keeper's name was Lyscenko (very likely a misspelling, i.e. Stalin's
favorite "biologist").
-- 
George Martin
Systems Analyst                     NRAO/VLA                  Socorro NM
Internet: gmartin@zia.aoc.nrao.edu
"Skating away on the thin ice of the new day."  (Ian Anderson)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Subject: Re: Darwin's Enigma
Reply-To: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 16:30:39 GMT

In article <cb6e02afcah600@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com>, jloucks@uts.amdahl.com (Jim
Loucks) writes:
> lindsay+@cs.cmu.edu (Donald Lindsay) writes:
> >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.
> 
> Get the video and see for yourself, "The Evolution Conspiracy,"
> available from the ICR in El Cajon, California. I believe the
> area code is 619.

   Since the ICR is not above editing printed work to invert or distort it's
meaning, why should we believe they haven't edited the videotape?  CBS news
and other organizations with vastly more credibility than the ICR regularly
edit _their_ videotape to spice up a story.

   Given that what the videotapes say is (i) implausible and (ii) exactly
what a bunch of known liars want said, I'm suspicious.  

> Jim Loucks           jloucks@uts.amdahl.com 
> {apple, pyramid, sun, uunet}!amdahl!jloucks

Dan
Danwell@IASTATE.EDU
"There are none so blind as those who will not see."
"Know the truth and the truth shall make you free."
"               ____________    "
    x     x    /            \
       ^      <  Pthhbptt!!  >
     _____     \____________/
    /  U  \
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: salem@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Bruce Salem)
Subject: More Bullshit from Jim Re: Darwin's Enigma
Organization: DSG, Stanford University
Date: 11 Apr 92 01:10:52 GMT

jloucks@uts.amdahl.com (Jim Loucks) writes:

>Rather, the main issue is that textbooks and other school
>materials are completely devoid of certain very significant 
>scientific information which is talked about behind closed doors
>but not made available to the public.

	You know, Jim, this is absolute bullshit! If someone
said that they could prove evolution by using only the fossil
record, I'd say Bullshit, too. Don't you realize how the
inquiry was limited to the fossil record, alone, and how
someone used the hedging that scientists are accoustomed to
making in conversation to cast doubt on much larger questions.

	So far as I am concerned you posting is just an ineuendo.
I'd use what these poeple have published rather than some interviews
which could be used out of context to distort and discredit what
someone says.

	Before you do a thing, you must either cease using this
material or post enough of it in context so we can read what was
said. Better than that, regard all of this as some heresay, ignore
it, and go read what these scientists have published.

	There is no public deception, or denial of public aring
of the ideas of these scientists, including the contentious
questions that exist. Unless you are prepared to discuss these
matters, using some published sources to back you up I suggest
that you keep this kind of ineundo and heresay to yourself.
The only lack of access is your own lazyness in investigating
these sources. I suggest that you remain silent until you
know what is being said and not write about it until you
can write about it without destortion.

Bruce Salem

Xref: sparky talk.origins:4414 talk.religion.misc:7387