HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: huston@access.digex.com (Herb Huston)
Subject: Re: Would you believe anyway ???
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 13:48:31 GMT

In article <BxJz2K.zE@brunel.ac.uk> bm90ash@brunel.ac.uk (Adrian S Harvey) writes:
>p.s. Science cannot explain some of the biggest things in life  --  LOVE,

Oh?  You'd better read about Harry Harlow's research.

>Jesus said that "God is love "  Therefore science cannot explain God  - Simple ......

Read _The Biology of God_ by Alister Hardy.

-- Herb Huston
-- huston@access.digex.com
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: sdoe@nmsu.edu (Stephen Doe)
Subject: Re: Would you believe anyway ???
Organization: New Mexico State University
Distribution: world, public
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 05:59:34 GMT

In article <BxJz2K.zE@brunel.ac.uk> bm90ash@brunel.ac.uk (Adrian S Harvey) writes:
>Question : If God exists, why doesn't He come and tell us?
>
>
>Would we believe Him if he did ??
>
>
>
>Jesus Christ came to this earth ~2000 years ago to tell us that not only did God exist but that he wants to know us.

Yeah, and notice how well he's lived up to his promise of a "speedy
return" and the implication that some of the original disciples would
still be alive when he returned.  In my eyes, those are criteria we
can use to evaluate the truthfulness of Christianity, and guess what!
It fails miserably.

Of course you have rationalizations to deal with this sort of
objection.

>In true scientific fashion, how do you know that God exists unless you reach out to Him like he asks.

As a former Christian, I have sincerely done that.  No dice.  He's not
there, or he doesn't want to "save" me.

>If you really want to find out what is going on then reach out to God with a desire to know Him, then you'll know that He is there...
>
>
>p.s. Science cannot explain some of the biggest things in life  --  LOVE,
>
>Jesus said that "God is love "  Therefore science cannot explain God  - Simple ......

Love is a state of mind.  Are you saying God is all in our heads?

SD
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: keithd@well.sf.ca.us (Keith Doyle)
Subject: Re: Science is inadequate--NOT!
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 04:00:06 GMT



mchaffee@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Real life?!  Bahahahahah!!) writes:
>What you fail to note is that EVERYTHING was a supernatural phenomenon
>before it was explained. [ examples... ] The PURPOSE of science
>is to examine "supernatural phenomena" and prove that they are not.  If we
>had accepted everything we didn't understand from the beginning of time as
>god at work, we as a race would not exist.  Science's purpose, to me, is
>to prove that THERE ARE NO SUPERNATURAL PHENOMENA.

SHHH!  You aren't supposed to say anything about that!

I mean, here we have Bob Bales' articles about isochron dating.  He's
attempting to use science to show that a young Earth is not a
*supernatural* event, but a natural one.  If Bob can scientifically
demonstrate that the Earth is young, we then have evidence that there
are natural processes sufficient to explain it, therefore supernatural
processes are completely unnecessary for either an old *or* a young
Earth.

Keith

 o o
  o
 \_/
From: johnsd2@vccnw01.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel Norman Johnson)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Date: 13 Nov 92 02:13:43 GMT
Reply-To: johnsd2@vccnw01.its.rpi.edu.its1
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.

>>   Please be real.  To model even the simplest organic reactions mathematicall
>> is intractable.  (I assume p107 of the book you referred to earlier)

>Well then the proposal of molecular evolution that life arose from
>reactions between simple organic molecules cannot be demonstrated, can
>it? And if it cannot be demonstrated, then all claims that it actually
>occurred are premature, aren't they? And if one believes it occurred,
>then one does so on faith alone, right?

This has nothing to do with evolution. That's abiogenesis. Evolution
talks about live developing from other life, not "simple organic molecules"

It does not bode will for you disproof of evolution that you do not know
what evolution is, Kalki. Cris Colby (FAQmaster Extraordinare) recently
posted some FAQs you should probably read, to prevent this sort of faux-pas.

---
			- Dan Johnson
And God said "Jeeze, this is dull"... and it *WAS* dull. Genesis 0:0

These opinions have had all identifiying marks removed, and are untraceable.
You'll never know whose they are.
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: tycchow@riesz.mit.edu (Timothy Y. Chow)
Subject: Re: Bales is a liar: evidence - one case
Organization: None.  This saves me from writing a disclaimer.
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 92 15:59:04 GMT

Here's what my online Webster says:

4. lie n 1a: an assertion of something known or believed by the speaker to
   be untrue with intent to deceive 1b: an untrue or inaccurate statement that
   may or may not be believed true by the speaker 2: something that misleads
   or deceives 3: a charge of lying

Apparently Bales is denying that he has lied in sense 1a, while Meritt is
accusing him of lying in the sense of 1b or 2.  Does this debate really
boil down to nothing more than this?
-- 
Tim Chow     tycchow@math.mit.edu
Where a calculator on the ENIAC is equipped with 18,000 vacuum tubes and weighs
30 tons, computers in the future may have only 1,000 vacuum tubes and weigh
only 1 1/2 tons.                               ---Popular Mechanics, March 1949
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: What is consciousness?
From: kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu
Date: 10 Nov 92 00:58:39 EDT
Organization: Wesleyan University

In article <4eXwTB1w165w@kalki33>, kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
> cust_ts@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Tero Sand) writes:
> 
>> In article <1L7TTB1w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
> 
>> >To us, however, the most striking feature of life is the fact that it is
       ^^
   Just who is "us"?

>> >conscious. We observe consciousness in living beings. Although there may
>> >be little or no physical difference between a living body and a body
>> >which has recently died, we intuitively know that there is a difference:
>> >in a living body there is consciousness, or a soul, and in a dead body
>> >there is not.
>> 
>> I see. Are trees conscious? Is a virus conscious?
> 
> Yes, trees and viruses are living beings, are they not?

   Are they?  How do you define alive?  A virus has no metabolism.
How can you tell if something has consciousness?  It's not an empirical
characteristic like metabolism that can be easily distinguished.

Karl
------
"Find a great ideal, a great purpose, marry it, and raise a family."
					 --Negativland, "U2"
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: noah's ark
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 17:31:51 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.151435.24242@swbatl.sbc.com>, mk452a@oktext.sbc.com (Mark
Kamphaus) writes:
> In article <1992Nov9.171935@IASTATE.EDU> kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren
Vonroeschlaub) writes:
> >In article <s25yTB2w164w@cellar.org>, kml@cellar.org (Scott Tiger) writes:
> >[claim that people who deny a global flood are not using a literal reading
of
> >Genisis]                                                   ^^^^^^^
> >
> >  You have apparently completely missed the point.  The whole idea is that I
> >(and most CWACKs) _don't_ believe Genisis should be read literally.
>                                                          ^^^^^^^^^^
> >
> >[more stuff to address a nonexistant point]
> >> To repeat: it was not local, it required all animals to be on the ark,
> >> and its effects should be seen worldwide.  They're not.
> >
> >  If you read it literally, yes.  But it is the meaning behind the words for
>                  ^^^^^^^^^^^
> >which it was written that I use.  Why do you feel the need to attack your
> >allies?
> 
> Come on now, Do you mean that if you read some *ENGLISH* *TRANSLATION* of
> the Bible and try to force the *literal* meaning of *english* words onto
> the Hebrew, that you may not end up with the meaning that was intended?

  Yes.

> Tsk, Tsk.  Try looking up *translation* and *interpretation* before we
> start talking about *literal*.

  I agree.  Am I loosing some points for failing to detect sarcasm?

>  Literal has little meaning after those
> processes, especially if the translation is a dynamic equivalent or a
> paraphrase.  Formal equivalency may tend to give a more "exact" translation,
> but then you can't assume the same connotation and usage of the english word.

  Ah, but even going back and looking at the Hebrew, no, let me say even making
a major archeological find, and reading the literal meaning into the original
documents, is not going to give what was probably intended.

> I don't see taking the Bible literally as a major obstacle, although there
are
> some difficulties.

  Even with the Hebrew and the original documents, I wouldn't take them
literally without good reason.

>  What I do see is that the creationist tend to believe that
> the KJV and NIV translations are the inerrant literal equivalent of the
> autographs.  (Am I right?  I would be surprised to see a creationist post
> Gen 1:1 from Youngs Literal Translation or to comment on what it literally
> means for the earth to bring something forth (Gen1:24-25)).

  Well, I have seen some Creationists quote the NIV, but so far the only time I
have seen a C bring up the original hebrew has been when a problem is found with
C'ism.

 |  __L__
-|-  ___  Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub
 |  | o | kv07@iastate.edu
 |/ `---' Iowa State University
/|   ___  Math Department
 |  |___| 400 Carver Hall
 |  |___| Ames, IA  50011
 J  _____
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: skroger@zax.acs.calpoly.edu (Seth L Kroger)
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Organization: Academic Computing Services, Cal Poly San Luis Obispo
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 20:15:15 GMT

tycchow@nevanlinna.mit.edu (Timothy Y. Chow) writes:
>Although I agree that probability arguments in no way establish that
>"evolution is false," I do not think that the responses that I have
>seen posted so far are on the mark.  Many of them seem to argue that
>the calculations cited are of no value at all.  However, suppose we
>interpret the calculation this way: GIVEN assumptions X, Y, and Z, the
>probability of abiogenesis is extremely small.  The calculation then
>serves the function of suggesting that our current models of abiogenesis
>are inadequate and motivating further investigation.  Hence it seems
>that a better response to such probability calculations is not to
>dismiss them out of hand but to say:

Such probability calculations should be dismissed out of hand because:

   1.  Assumptions X, Y, and Z are wrong and misleading.  They bear little
resemblence to our current abiogenesis models.  The results are therefore
not applicable.

   2.  They attempt to prove that something is impossible by calculating
the probability after the fact.  Let's say I roll a 10-sided die 1000 times
and come up with the number 8795329903075277982399.....[many digits
deleted]...7527042705903274103.  A creationist would say that I couldn't
possibably rolled that exact number, because the probability is 10^-1000.

>Tim Chow     tycchow@math.mit.edu


|======================================================================|
| Seth Kroger                       "If God made us in His image we    |
| skroger@pan.calpoly.edu               have certianly returned the    |
| Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo             compliment."  -Voltaire        |
From: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Date: 13 Nov 92 14:30:02 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us

In article <e0N3TB8w165w@kalki33>, kalki33!system@lakes writes:
>If there isn't a model for abiogenesis "yet", then why do supposedly
>reputable scientists make the premature claim that life arose from
>non-life?

Because the evidence points very strongly in that direction.

>	   Unless a model can be shown to be correct, then it is not
>scientific to claim that the phenomenon occurred, is it?

I suppose you also agree that it was terribly unscientific to say that
"supernovae occur" before 1987?  Crackpot time!
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: igb@fulcrum.co.uk (Ian G Batten)
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Organization: Fulcrum Communications
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 10:06:10 GMT

In article <JNi2TB2w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
> The book demonstrates that by adopting the hypotheses of the theory
> of molecular evolution, it must follow from these hypotheses that there
> is an extremely tiny --virtually infinitesimal-- probability that a
> living cell could have arisen by random molecular combination under
> natural selection, even given a period of time much longer than the
> estimated age of the earth.

So what?  If I take a pack of cards (let's make it a Tarot deck, so the
numbers are larger!) and shuffle it, the chances of that sequence
occurring are 1 in 78!  Now thanks to the ever-wonderful CMU Common
Lisp, I can evaluate that:

11324281178206297831457521158732046228731749579488251990048962825668835325234200766245086213177344000000000000000000

Roughly 1 in 10 to the 115.  Now by most people's measurement, that's a
rather small possibility.  But I only had to do it once to achieve that
result!

My father could generate 2^23 distinct sperm.  My mother could produce
2^23 distinct ova.  Therefore, the chances of my existing are (2^23)^2,
or 2^46.  Now that's not such a large number: 1 in 70368744177664.  But
my parents are the product of the same chance.  My father is only one of
the 70368744177664 children his parents could have produced, my mother
likewise, and I likewise of them.  So that allows us to cube the number
to 348449143727040986586495598010130648530944 before we even worry about
the chance of them meeting.  And their parents.  And their parents.

Arguing post facto that something is unlikely is pointless.  It
happened.  Its likelihood or otherwise doesn't affect that.

ian
From: adpeters@sunflower.bio.indiana.edu (Andy Peters)
Subject: Re: Molecular Genesis
Organization: Program in Evolution, Ecology, and Behavior, Indiana University
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 00:23:52 GMT

In article <1992Nov2.145340.203202@uctvax.uct.ac.za> rybicki@uctvax.uct.ac.za writes:
>IN THE BEGINNING:

[bulk of excellent Genesis spoof deleted]

>And Urkaryote became Eubacteria and Archaea and Eukarya
>And the Archaea and Eubacteria did excise all or most of
>     their introns
>And stayed small
>While Eukarya kept theirs, and grew

I couldn't resist pointing out that this is by no means established yet.
Yes, most textbooks teach "introns-early" as gospel (:-), but the data
I've seen on the subject have convinced me that introns really evolved
in the eukaryote lineage (and not particularly early in that lineage,
either).  

If people are interested in discussing this further, I can try to get
John Logsdon (a sometime-t.o-poster who studies this stuff) to comment.

>|  Ed Rybicki                     |    Now you've got the hang of it      |

-- 
* Andy Peters                     * "Slugs are small and portable    *From
* Program in Evolution,           * Just stuff 'em up your nose      *"Slugs,"
*      Ecology, and Behavior      * They'll fit beneath your armpits *by David
* Indiana University, Bloomington * Or right between your toes"      *Greenberg
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: cotera@woods.ulowell.edu
Subject: The purpose of science (was Science is inadequate-NOT!)
Organization: University of Lowell
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 16:02:38 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.090525.24183@nic.funet.fi>, TMakinen writes:
> In article <Bx7JAo.1LL@news.cso.uiuc.edu> mchaffee@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Real
> life?!  Bahahahahah!!) writes:
>>What you fail to note is that EVERYTHING was a supernatural phenomenon before
>>it was explained. [ examples... ] The PURPOSE of science
>>is to examine "supernatural phenomena" and prove that they are not.  If we
>>had accepted everything we didn't understand from the beginning of time as god
>>at work, we as a race would not exist.  Science's purpose, to me, is to prove
>>that THERE ARE NO SUPERNATURAL PHENOMENA.
> 
> That's about excactly what I tried to say.

Huh? I think you're in science for the wrong reason.  The purpose of science is
to quantify nature.
--Ray Cote
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: TMakinen
Subject: Re: What is consciousness?
Organization: <none>
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 92 15:02:47 GMT

In article <BeJ1TB1w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
>It is a fact that if we are talking one minute to a living person and
>the next minute that person dies, we will know intuitively that
>there is something missing. We immediately think "he is gone". Who is
>"he"? The body is still there, but the person is gone. The self that
>was the object of awareness is gone. What was this self? Was it the
>beating of the heart. Was it the oxygen in the brain? Was it some
>combination of material elements? No, of course not.

It is a fact that if we are typing one minute in front of our computer and
the next minute that computer crashes, we will know intuitively that
there is something missing (don't we?). We immediately think "he is gone". Who
is
"he"? The box is still there, but the process is gone. The self that
was the object of awareness is gone. What was this self? Was it the
ticking of the internal clock. Was it the electricity in the transistors? Was
it some
combination of material elements? No, of course not. :) :) :)

>We can say what consciousness is, but first we would like your opinion:
>what is it, what happens to it after death, and why?

Mom, where do all the little word processors go when I switch the computer off?

Sincerely and seriously,

Teemu Makinen
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: What is consciousness?
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 23:04:25 GMT

  Kalki, I just want to explore the limits of "consciousness" by your
definition.  Please try to answer all the questions.  I will be addressing some
possible objections, please don't make those objections without adressing my
counter-arguments.

  Q1.  Is my watch conscious?  When it stops working I usually say it is dead. 
By streatching our definitions of pleasure and pain I can say it seeks one and
avoids the other.

  Q2: Is my computer conscious?  It thinks.  Many people insist that computers
"don't like" them.  It is simple to get my computer to tell me whether is is
happy or not.  You could even say my computer is loyal, it rarely disobeys.

  Q3: Is a simulation of life on my computer conscious?  It can be made to act
just like the real thing.

  Possible objection to Q3: Artificial life is not conscious because it is run
on an unconscious device.  It is made of the unconscious, so it is unconscious.

  Counter-argument: Atoms are unconscious (they do not seek pleasure or pain,
they do not eat or sleep), yet conscious beings are made of atoms.  How is this
different?

  Q4: If I was capable of manufacturing an exact duplicate of a human being,
would that duplicate be conscious?  If so, how accurate do I have to be?  Could
this be done by a simulation in the computer?

  I would appreciate any response from the K continuum.

 |  __L__
-|-  ___  Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub
 |  | o | kv07@iastate.edu
 |/ `---' Iowa State University
/|   ___  Math Department
 |  |___| 400 Carver Hall
 |  |___| Ames, IA  50011
 J  _____
From: bobb@tekig1.PEN.TEK.COM (Robert W Bales)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Bales is a liar: evidence - one case
Date: 12 Nov 92 23:15:49 GMT



Jim Meritt has written several more articles in the current battle over my
"lying."  This group should not become a personal battleground.  However, when
I ignore the distortions and false statements, my silence is publically taken
to indicate guilt and the charges are repeated.  I do not think my defense
adds materially to the bandwidth used by the group.

I'll probably respond more late, but one of Jim's comments requires an
individual response.  The issue is whether I had answered the question:

}$               What data has been collected in support of creationism.


Jim includes my response as:

}The interlocking nature of the feather is strong evidence that it did NOT
}evolve. Quoting again from _Vertabrates. . . ._
}
}     "The typical feather has the two rows of barbs of slightly unequal
}     length, the one which is anterior on the body being the shorter.
}     Each barb has anterior and posterior barbules, the former with hooks 
}     or hamuli and the latter with ridges, so that the flat surface or
}     vane of the feather is firmly locked together on exactly the prin-
}     ciple of the zipper." (page 434)
}
}Here we have another case of of *two* different, independent things, both of
}which must be present to accoplish the function.  Evolutionary processes,
}assuming they occur,  explain how *one* thing (at a time) can develop via a
}mutation and then be selected for, but as I pointred out above, they do not
}explain the development of simultaneous features.

and then says:

>In case you didn't read what you wrote, your entire discussion revolves
>around what you do not believe evolutionary processes do and does NOT even
>mention creationism.

But I DID read what I wrote.  What I wrote included *two additional ines*,
which Jim cut:

*On the other hand, the use of multiple different parts working together to
*accomplish a function is a hallmark of design.

These lines expand what Jim included and completly contradict the statement
that my discussion is *entirely* about evolution.

>Hence, this is not evidence FOR creationism.

I mentioned "design~ rather than "creation.  But since creation is the only
prominent theory to include the idea of design, the presence in living
organisms of characteristics of design which are not characteristics of
evolutionary-type processes tends to indicate creation is a better explanation
than evolution.

The point is, however, that discussing the issues in the above paragraph
is what this group is for.  Distorting what I say, or what anyone says, and
falsely staing that I did not address the subject short-circuits fair debate.

Whether the omission was deliberate, or whether Jim somehow deleted the lines
before he knew what they said, I don't know.  But there was distorion, and I
invite Jim to comment on my undistorted statements.

   Bob Bales
   Tektronix, Inc.

I help Tektronix make their instruments. They don't help me make my opinions.
From: isaak@aurora.com (Mark Isaak)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Date: 13 Nov 92 16:54:26 GMT
Reply-To: isaak@aurora.com (Mark Isaak)
Organization: The Aurora Group

In article <e0N3TB8w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
>No one has ever seen a living organism arise from an assemblage
>of lifeless matter, have they?

Actually, before the idea of spontaneous generation was finally put to
rest in the last century or so, people saw living organims arise from
lifeless matter all the time.  At least, they thought they did.
Interesting, isn't it, that the idea of abiogenesis never became
controversial until the Creationists started feeling threatened?

>I agree with you that, since no one can agree on a model for the
>evolution of life from matter, it is unscientific to claim that it
>happened. It is, therefore, an article of faith to state that one knows
>such evolution occured.

Nonsense.  At one time, life did not exist.  Now it does.  Obviously,
some kind of change took place in the interim.  Far from being "an
article of faith," that's basic logic.  At issue now is only which
model for that change best fits the data.
-- 
Mark Isaak           "Every generation thinks it has the answers, and every
isaak@aurora.com      generation is humbled by nature." - Philip Lubin
Newsgroups: talk.origins