HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: isaak@aurora.com (Mark Isaak)
Subject: Re: Observations
Reply-To: isaak@aurora.com (Mark Isaak)
Organization: The Aurora Group
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 92 19:51:45 GMT

In article <qe5e904@zola.esd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.esd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
>In article <1992Sep28.123356.25628@city.cs>, lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun) writes:
>> There are numerous examples of withered arms and legs being grown back
>> or re-created by God. Check out one of these maybe.

>If there are "numerous" cases, then it should be easy to 
>give us a reference to a few of them.

Of possible interest:

Fishman, Steve. (1992). "Hunting for a miracle," _Health_ 6:1
(Feb/Mar 92), 48-59.
An article about the miracles at Lourdes.  It's interesting that the
miracles have become less frequent now that people are examining them more.

Hall, Stephen S. (1992). "Cheating fate," _Health_ 6:2 (Apr/May 92), 38-46.
About the mystery of spontaneous remission.

I don't think either of these is the kind of thing Lionel has in mind, though.
-- 
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: jgacker@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker)
Subject: Re: Progressive Creationism Part 6
Organization: Goddard Space Flight Center
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Distribution: world,local
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 15:11:30 GMT

James J. Lippard (lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu) wrote:
: In article <91243@rphroy.ph.gmr.com>, hamilton@gmr.com (William E. Hamilton CS50 CS/50) writes...

HAMILTON:
: >Politics. The young-earth view is incredibly powerful in conservative 
: >Christianity. Even a person of Boice's stature could be damaged by
: >openly opposing it. 

LIPPARD:
: I'm presently reading Ronald Numbers' _The Creationists_, and was quite
: surprised to find that things used to be quite the reverse, up until around
: the 1920's or later.  That is, old-earthers were quite dominant, except in
: the Seventh Day Adventist crowd, whose influence through George McCready
: Price led to today's creationism.  Sev'l early U.S. creationist organizations
: were split over heated battles between Price-following flood geologists
: and day-age and gap theorists.

	I just heard this too, in the Sunday class which is accompanied
by Boice's book.  Apparently, theistic evolution was a major tenet of 
1920's fundamentalists.
	It's a shame that we've taken such a step backwards, both in
tolerance and in knowledge (well, I haven't, but several fundamental
branches of the Christian church have.)

	Jim, got the mailing address for "Crossroads"?  Let's
do it.  For the good of the church, if nothing else.

	Jim Acker
	jgacker@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov
From: kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: 29 Sep 92 01:27:33 GMT
 <1992Sep28.123356.25628@city.cs> <qe5e904@zola.esd.sgi.com>
Organization: Wesleyan University

In article <qe5e904@zola.esd.sgi.com>, livesey@solntze.esd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
> In article <1992Sep28.123356.25628@city.cs>, lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun) writes:
>>
>> You just need to be at the right place at the right time. There
>> are numerous examples of withered arms and legs being grown back
>> or re-created by God. Check out one of these maybe.
> 
> If there are "numerous" cases, then it should be easy to 
> give us a reference to a few of them.

   From a non-religious-affiliated source, of course.
 
> While you are at it, explain how you distinguish between a
> spontaneous recovery, and "God did it".       I've always 
> wondered about that one.

   Hell, I can tell you that.  Spontatneous recovery only happens
to atheists; God only heals fundies.

Karl
------
"By the cold and religious we were taken in hand,
 Shown how to feel good, and told to feel bad."
From: sbishop@desire.wright.edu
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: 29 Sep 92 11:27:41 GMT
Organization: Wright State University

In article <1992Sep28.123356.25628@city.cs>, lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun) writes:
> In article <1992Sep25.132130.19649@athena.mit.edu> lking@athena.mit.edu (Loren King) writes:
>>In article <19920924.131829.48@almaden.ibm.com>, mannk@fshvmfk1.VNET.IBM.COM
>>(Ken Mann) writes:
>>
>>|> Lawrence C. Foard writes:
>>|> >And why can't an animal evolve into another? Evolution is >>observed<<
>>|> >all the time.
>>|> 
>>|> I frequently see this statement in this newsgroup.
>>|> Please list >>observations<< of animals evolving into other animals.
>>|> Who has observed this happening?  And what did they observe?
>>
>>
>> ... and while they're at that, could you please show me
>>some examples of divine creation ... show me God creating
>>things; don't just tell me that she or he did ... I want
>>to see the act AND the actor ... I want to observe it
>>happening!
> 
> You just need to be at the right place at the right time. There
> are numerous examples of withered arms and legs being grown back
> or re-created by God. Check out one of these maybe.
> 
> --
> Lionel Tun   (lionel@cs.city.ac.uk)
> Vision Group, City University, London, EC1V 0HB. 071-477 8000 x 3889

After many years of attending fundamental churches I NEVER saw anything
that could be considered a miracle.  I DID see things that people claimed
were miracles, none of them were.  Including the 'miraculous' (or so claimed)
healing of my own mother.  (Who died two weeks later from the 'cured' cancer.)
I never saw the blind see, or any withered arm or leg being grown back or
even anyone able to toss their glasses away.  
Have YOU actually seen someone grow an arm or leg back?  I don't think so.
These type of claims are always a long distance away and totally unknown
people.  Sorta like World Weekly News claims of Elvis Sightings or babies
born from alien fathers.

Sue
From: swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Questions for Evolutionists
Date: 5 Oct 92 23:27:18 GMT
Reply-To: swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <1992Oct2.130253.202956@uctvax.uct.ac.za> watkins@uctvax.uct.ac.za writes:
|> 
|> The standard results of textual criticism are that the Torah (not just
|> Genesis) is a conflation of at least *four* major sources, usually
|> called J, E, D, and P.  In addition, there is, of course, the Redactor
|> (or redactors) who squished them all together.
|> 
|> Genesis 1 is either by P or D (P, I think).  Genesis 2 is by J.
|
|   Actually, Gen1 is E, for Elihoist; Gen2 is J, for Jahweist redactors.

Are you sure of that?  I could have sworn that the concepts developed in
the first creation account were developed much later in time than the
E text.  They really seem more appropriate for the Babylonian Exile era,
which would make them P. (Certainly its textual base, a Babylonian poly-
theistic creation myth would have been more easily accessed during the
Exile than earlier).

|Wellhausen's JEPD theory arose during the late 1800's, based on the (now
|questionable) assumption of the archaeological and historical failure of the
|Old Testament. It postulated the compilation of the Old Testament from various
|sources thru' out Israel's history - the Eliohist and Jahweist being the
|earliest, then the Priestly redactor was added, then the Deutoronomist source
|at the time of the Monarchy (I don't have exact dates but ca.680BC I think)
|The Deuteronomist redactor is the last in the line.

If so then it has certainly been largely revised.  J and E are certainly
the oldest, but P is the latest, with D in between.

The D material almost certainly originates at the time of the 'rediscovery'
of a 'book of the law' under one of the later kings, with the revival it
initiated.

The P authors were almost certainly the heirs of Isaiah during the the Exile.
-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: emc@doe.carleton.ca (Eli Chiprout)
Subject: Re: Deja vu all over agai
Organization: Dept. of Electronics, Carleton University
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 18:33:25 GMT

In <1992Sep25.125418.18312@medtron.medtronic.com> ds0007@buhao (Dale Skiba) writes:

>I'll argue a bit here, just for fun.

>emc@doe.carleton.ca (Eli Chiprout) writes:
>: 
>: Atheism is not a belief but a lack of one.
>: You cannot prove atheism by any means or argument.
>: Atheism simply acknowledges the epistemological problems
>: of trying to come to knowledge of an agent that cannot be defined 
>: or observed.  

>I think you may be getting confused between Agnostisism and
>Athiesim.  Agnostics acknowledge that there are problems with
>proving or disproving the existence of God, so they say that
>they do not know.  "Maybe there is a God, maybe there isn't a
>God".  This is a true lack of belief.

>Athiests believe that God does not exist.  This is a belief. 
>Your summary appears to be as follows:  "People imagine all
>sorts of silly things.  I choose not to believe in the existence
>of any of them unless they are observable."  

The line between Agnosticism and Atheism is actually very thin
or nonexistant.  I suggest you tune in to alt.atheism.  If you
post the same comment, you will find that many atheist disagree
with you.  The prefix "a" in atheism means "without" or "not".  But
because atheism is without or not theism leaves it with no meaning
of its own.  An individual who feels that "God" is not a well
defined/formulated concept to have comments about can very well
be called an atheist.  He does not believe in "God" because he
does not know what "God" is.  The "strong" atheism to which you
refer, where the concept of God is felt to be fully understood, 
and one has complete conviction that it is false, is actually 
rarely encountered among most reasoning individuals.  This would
indeed be a faith as much as theism. Most would
rather not give a higher place in their thoughts to a god with
no implications in the real world that to Pink Elephants unless
it shows more promise.

As for you comment about miracles, many a modern theologian
wonders about the veracity of the miraculous accounts accepting
that the enthusiam of the time allowed for this kind of wild
exageration in the Bible.  So we are back to "no interaction"
with the verifiable world.



--
Eli Chiprout
Dept. of Electronics
Carleton University	
emc@doe.carleton.ca
From: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Differing accounts of creation in Genesis
Date: 5 Oct 92 15:32:46 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale)

In article <1992Oct2.175617.28134@dcs.warwick.ac.uk>, simon@dcs (Simon Clippingdale) writes:
>Sorry, but in the KJV at least there is a clear contradiction because the
>order of events *is* unambiguously specified in *each* account. (I note
>Weemba's post re. tenses in biblical Hebrew, but did the KJV translators
>really invent *all* the implied ordering?)

No, they did not invent it.  The original is ambiguous, and both the
contradictory and the consistent orderings are indeed there.  Like most
translators, the KJVers opted for simplicity over literalness.  It's
especially difficult to preserve ambiguity across languages--each
language always has its own quirks in this regard.  I'll make a stab
at it in this case below.

>#  2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the
>#  field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see
>#                                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>#  what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living
>#  creature, that was the name thereof.

>Adam clearly exists [2:19] before the beasts are made.

>Accepting provisionally (I don't know the Hebrew) Weemba's contention that
>no contradiction might exist in the Hebrew, I am nevertheless utterly at a
>loss to see how it is possible to interpret the above as written (no moving
>verse 1:25 around, now!) such that no contradiction exists.

To chip away at that "utterly", translate 2:19 as "The LORD God brought
the now-formed out of the ground beasts of the field ...."  If you
emphasize "now" as "just now", you get the contradictory KJV sense.  But
if you read the "now" as "by now", you do not.  If you leave the "now"
alone, the timing is ambiguous.

>							     Unless you totally
>abandon your brains of course.

Only regarding the KJV.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
Xref: sparky talk.origins:12285 sci.skeptic:17190
From: smullins@cidmac.ecn.purdue.edu (Scott H Mullins)
Newsgroups: talk.origins,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Object-oriented creation
Date: 30 Sep 92 14:41:54 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <lcj3unINNkdb@news.bbn.com> ncramer@labs-n.bbn.com (Nichael Cramer) writes:
>grante@aquarius.rosemount.com (Grant Edwards) writes:
>|ncramer@bbn.com (Nichael Cramer) writes:
>|: Maybe G*d's manager stuck him with C++?
>|We all know that all really cool supreme beings use Smalltalk.
>
>Actually, my son, We prefer CLOS.

Of course a supreme being would use a a combination of lisp and OOP. 
Who else has the eons of time needed for it to run?

>__
>NL

Scott
From: sbishop@desire.wright.edu
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: A brief Tirade and an addendum
Date: 29 Sep 92 11:30:53 GMT
Organization: Wright State University

In article <1135@tdat.teradata.COM>, swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen) writes:
> In article <1992Sep24.125153.4329@desire.wright.edu> sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
> |
> |Question number two:  What kind of evidence would you (as a creationist) 
> |consider valid evidence for evolution? 
> |
> |Responses I have gotten:  Bob Bales - Anything that doesn't look designed.
> |(This is an answer?)  Various other Creationists - (total silence)
> 
> Well, then Bob Bales, you may consider yourself answered.  Go read "The
> Panda's Thumb" by Stephen J. Gould - it is just chock full of such things.
> Or try Darwin's "Origin of the Species", it also mentions a great many
> things that don't look designed, and uses them as major supporting
> arguments for his theory of evolution.

But Bob claims EVERYTHING looks designed.  Even when no one else would think
it does.  Bob has tunnel vision.

Sue

> -- 
> sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
>   or
> Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
From: rh@smds.com (Richard Harter)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Friesen on elastics and sauropod necks
Date: 3 Oct 92 08:51:16 GMT
Reply-To: rh@ishmael.UUCP (Richard Harter)
Organization: Software Maintenance & Development Systems, Inc.

In article <1174@tdat.teradata.COM> swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen) writes:
>In article <42@fedfil.UUCP> news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:

>|Again, reread what McGowan says about the lives of elephants.  They spend
>|most of their waking hours eating;  McGowan says it is not clear to him
>|how anything could eat enough to get any bigger than elephants.  

>I do not have my copy of McGowan (?sp) handy, but I suspect that this is
>taken out of context.  This argument certainly only applies to *endotherms*,
>a cold-blooded animal would need less food at any given size.  And guess
>what, the sauropods are the *only* group of dinosaurs that the recent
>evidence shows were cold-blooded.

No, it's not taken out of context -- it's simply false.  McGowan explicitly
raises the question:  If elephants spend most of their waking hours eating
then how could larger animals get enough to eat?  He answers the question.
Elephants have inefficient digestion.  Elephants are not ruminants and they
don't have gizzards, the two main strategies for bulk digestion of plant
roughage.  Baluchatherium, which was a mammal and was in the sauropod
weight class, was a ruminant.  The evidence is pretty good that sauropods
had gizzards.

Incidentally, what evidence are you talking about for cold-blooded
sauropods?  I don't have my copy of _Kings of Creation_ at hand but
it does have a 1992 date and it does go into the controversy.  If my
recollection serves me correctly, the whole question is very much up
in the air.  Everybody agrees that they were inertial homeotherms at
a minimum.  Beyond that it gets pretty murky.
-- 
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.
From: robd@cherry09.cray.com (Robert Derrick)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Genesis (was Deja vu all over again)
Date: 30 Sep 92 20:40:12 GMT
Distribution: world,local
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

James J. Lippard (lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu) wrote:
: Of course, when evolutionists do the same thing
                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: with fossil morphology, genetic data, and radiometric dating, it doesn't work.
: 
: Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
: Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
: University of Arizona
: Tucson, AZ 85721


Ok, kids, I know that a lot of discussion takes place on a regular basis
about whether or not it is PC to use that word to respectfully refer to
those people.  But when one of the most respected (or at least one for
whom I have a tremendous amount of respect) evolutionists uses the word,
I think we can safely say that it has entered into the canon.  So I
would say that it is a safe bet that continued arguing about it only
stirs up the hornets, who need no further provocation.

Right?

Of course, _evolutionism_ is still verboten!
For you all TAE's, this is _your_ insult word for us, the evolutionists..
--

rob derrick				robd@cherry.cray.com
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: jgacker@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (Class Guest3)
Subject: Re: Observations
Organization: Goddard Space Flight Center
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 14:19:17 GMT

Bruce Salem (salem@pangea.Stanford.EDU) wrote:
: 	I have seen Jim Aker's bio and acknowledge that he is indeed
: a geochemist specializing in groundwater geochemistry and I take it,
: duagenesis. This does not necessarily make him any more an expert
: on origins then myself. I apologize to Jim and to others for denegrating
: him.
: 

	Just to clarify -- my thesis research involved the dissolution
of aragonite in the deep ocean.  My postdoctoral research involved
surface water geochemistry (the influence of acidic conditions on the 
dissolution rate of biotite).  For those of you interested in finding
my citations, the name is spelled A-C-K-E-R.

	Thanks, Bruce.  I will attempt to be even more careful now in
distinguishing religious language vs. scientific language.

	Jim Acker
	jgacker@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov

Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: salem@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Bruce Salem)
Subject: Re: Progressive Creationism Part 2
Organization: Stanford Univ. Earth Sciences
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 00:25:14 GMT

	The kind of reconcilliation of Scripture with Geology
which Mr. Acker submitts is highly suspect. Even with his disclaimer
that he doesn't agree with all of it, one suspects that Jim's willingness
to post it implies that hethinks that it is a worthwhle approach.

	Now, having seen Jim's bio, I can say that someone who writes
papers on the chemistry of minerals in aqueous systems, and I preseme
something about dialenetic processes, is not necessarily an expert on
subjects such as stratigraphy, geochronology, etc.

	What really bothers me is the lack of care already evident
about language, the kind found in Scripture and the kind found in
scientific work, as though they must be reconciled. They cannot be
reconciled as if they use the same standards of knowledge, or the
same type of experience, or the same standard of objectivity. Religion
is not science and vice versa, and the language of the former cannot
be reconciled with the language of the latter. It is that the contexts
cannot be bent to become the same. The epistamological bases are not
reconcilable. I perfer to make appeals to faith personal and psychlogical
having no external correspondance, and to leave science with a weak
claim to knowledge as weak as humanly possible, and to not allow for
Mankind the knowledge he gives to Gods, including his ability to know
Gods or to speak for them. Scripture is human speech of what humans
thought God said to them, nothing more. Thoses prophets can have nothing
more in knowledge any of the rest of us can have.

Bruce Salem


Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Race Memory  (was: Progressive Creationism Part 6)
Date: 6 Oct 92 21:52:50 GMT
Organization: animal -- coelomate -- deuterostome

In article <1992Oct5.184924.2960@aurora.com> isaak@aurora.com (Mark Isaak) writes:

>My big objection to that theory is that I've never seen any evidence
>that such a thing as race memories exist, at least in the sense of
>memories we're born with. 

In addition, there is a mechanistic problem; racial memory would
have to involve the inheritance of an acquired charactoristic.
Some how thoughts would have to be transferred to DNA so they could
be passed on. 

>Mark Isaak           "Every generation thinks it has the answers, and every

Chris Colby 	---	 email: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu	---
"'My boy,' he said, 'you are descended from a long line of determined,
resourceful, microscopic tadpoles--champions every one.'"
 	--Kurt Vonnegut from "Galapagos"
From: cust_ts@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Tero Sand)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Antti dodges reality (take two)
Date: 2 Oct 92 15:40:25 GMT
Organization: University of Helsinki

In article <1992Oct2.121428.16289@cs.joensuu.fi> asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
>colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby) writes:
>>>	No, I was told that they're defined just by morphology. 
>
>>Then you were told wrong. They do not interbreed, the two new species
>>(one of which arose three independent times!) have different numbers of
>>chromosomes and do not produce fertile offspring. Once again, you
>>are only proving how astoundingly ignorant you are and the lengths
>>you will go to avoid learning anything about biology.
>
>	Am I responsible if I was told wrong ? Still I'm suspicious and want to
>	stick with living evidence. 

You're not responsible for being told wrong, you're responsible for not
checking sources yourself.

>
>	Saying that I'm ignorant doesn't make you to look any smarter, although
>	it is what you are aiming to.  
>

No, saying that you're ignorant (though I'd use the word stupid, because
not only are you ignorant you don't want to learn) means just that.
Means, what you say doesn't have much value.

-- 
-Tero Sand
  EMail: cust_ts@cc.helsinki.fi     Snail mail: Auroran Sairaala os. 6-1
  (if that doesn't work, try                    Nordenskioldinkatu 20
   custts@cc.helsinki.fi)                       00250 Helsinki 25, Finland
Newsgroups: talk.origins