HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: drchambe@tekig5.pen.tek.com (Dennis Chamberlin)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Bales is a liar: evidence - one case
Date: 12 Nov 92 20:31:48 GMT
Reply-To: drchambe@tekig5.pen.tek.com
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <7540@tekig7.PEN.TEK.COM> bobb@tekig1.PEN.TEK.COM (Robert W Bales) writes:
>
>
>When we study the fossil record, we do not see an "almost-human" species from
>which humans could likely have evolved.  We see apes and we see humans.  We
>see no evidence that any organism transitioned between them.  The fossil
>agrees with what we would expect to see if man was separately created, but
>not with what we would expect if man evolved.
>
I believe that the somewhat limited and fragmented record actually shows that
hominids become increasingly ape-like as you go back in time. Similarly, 
progressively more ancient ape fossils show increasing degrees of 
similarity to the ancient "ape-like" hominids. As I recall, for example,
the extinct Ramapithecus and Sivapithicus creatures for a time were 
classed as primitive hominids but now are considered by most to be in the
ape lineage. 

This sketchy  pattern tends to support a scenario where a transition 
creature is not necessary or expected. Proto-humans were different from
modern humans, and proto-apes were different from modern apes. However,
the proto-critturs were more similar to each other than the moderns 
are. As you go back in time, perhaps 15 My ago, the two lines would 
merge into one. Therefore, a direct transition is not the only alternative
to separate creation.

By rough analogy, we don't find that adjacent tree branches are connected
by woody transitions. Rather, they diverge from an earlier parent branch.
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 19:45:51 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <1992Nov12.134857.13709@linus.mitre.org> m23364@mwunix (James
 Meritt) writes:

>}  me

>}I do not "still claim" something which I have not claimed to begin with. 

>And if we produce the posting, complete with subject, date, and message-id,
>in which you HAVE made this claim, will you acknowledge that you lied in
>this instance and go away for another 6 months or so (which is how long you
>seem to stay away when caught in the web of your own deceipt)?

If you can produce a posting which says I have only scientific motives, or
says that I do not have religious motives, I will say that I gave an untrue
impression.  What else I say depends on the posting.  I do not think there is
one.  Let's see it.


   Bob Bales
   Tektronix, Inc.

I help Tektronix make their instruments. They don't help me make my opinions.
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: muttiah@thistle.ecn.purdue.edu (Ranjan S Muttiah)
Subject: Re: Do catastrophic events "speed up" evolution ?
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 02:26:03 GMT

In article <100586@bu.edu> colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby) writes:
>In article <1992Nov4.013224.16429@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> muttiah@thistle.ecn.purdue.edu (Ranjan S Muttiah) writes:
>>However, it is a shame that
>>there are no biologist interested in the matter(*).  Probably the standard
>>bearers are beating on the well worn out "creationism" sponge ?
>
>(*) "the matter" here being catastrophies speeding up evolution.
>Besides taking the time to beat on creationists, there is probably 
>another reason none of the biologists have responded. None of us
>study macroevolutionary type stuff (how come t.o. never attracts
>paleontologists?). My own take on your question would be -- No,
>catastrophies don't speed up evolution. Evolution chugs along
>constantly (at least at the molecular level) no matter what(*).
>((*) warning -- slight overgeneralization included for brevity)
>
>Following a mass extinction, many niches are opened up allowing
>for adaptive phenotypic change to occur. The speed of evolution (as 
>measured by flux of alleles) is probably unaffected, but the rate of 
>morphological change (due to evolution) would look bimodal because
>little genetic change is mirrored in morphology for long periods
>when the environment is stable, but after a mass extinction, many
>genetic changes may have a detectable outcome.


Have the paleontologists looked for this diversity in the fossil
records ?  I suspect that there will be more of this alllelic flux
during times of mass extinction than when in equilibrium.  Addtionally,
I wonder whether you consider competition between species to be
more of an interesting question, than competition within a species.

Thanks
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
From: kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu
Date: 11 Nov 92 06:10:46 EST
Followup-To: talk.origins
 <1992Nov10.005457.140369@zeus.calpoly.edu> <1992Nov10.163253.11821@bnr.ca>
Organization: Wesleyan University

In article <1992Nov10.163253.11821@bnr.ca>, (Michael Snider) writes:
>  
>> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
> 
> 
>> >angstroms. (See "What is Matter and What is Life" by Dr. T.D. Singh and
>> >Dr. Richard L. Thompson, Bhaktivedanta Institute monograph #1, 1977)
>                            ------------------------------------- 
> 
> This is the Hare Krishnas, folks.  Just another brand of fundie. Doubt the
> ICR would like them much, though.

   Didn't you notice his "Don't forget to chant" .sig?

Karl
------
"Find a great ideal, a great purpose, marry it, and raise a family."
					 --Negativland, "U2"
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: onar@hsr.no (Onar Aam)
Subject: Re: Emergent Properties. I. Introduction
Organization: Rogaland University Centre
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 15:34:11 GMT


>And that is what consciousness is -- an epiphenomena of the
>organic constituents.  And when the organic constituents are
>degraded beyond some as yet unknown point, the property of
>consciousness retreats, and ultimately disappears.  
>
>But when?  At the moment of death?  When, exactly, is that?
>

Your questions reveals your rigid adhesion to logic, that something is
either only true or only false. In fuzzy logic intermediate states of truth are
allowed. Ex. given a pile of sand. Everyone agrees that it really is a pile of
sand. But is it still a pile of sand if you remove a grain from the pile? Two,
three, four? At some point you have removed all grains and there would be no pile
left. But when did it happen? In fuzzy logic one would define a quantity called
"pileness" where this quantity gradually fades away as you remove grains.

So the answers to your question would be that there is no exact moment of death,
it happens gradually. At best one can define a quantity called "deathness" or even
"consciousness".

Onar.
From: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: What is consciousness?
Date: 11 Nov 92 20:49:03 GMT
Reply-To: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Organization: Kalki's Infoline BBS, Aiken, SC, USA

robd@cherry09.cray.com (Robert Derrick) writes:

> Neurons, Neutrons!  Carbohydrates, Hydrocarbons!
> 
> Picky petty bitchiness, if you ask me.
> 
> 
> But I do have a real question:
> 
> Is the "Kalki" a group of people, a consciousness continuum, or a king?
> 
> I mean, what is all this "We" jazz?
> 
> Would the "Kalki" care to elucidate?

I am Kalki Dasa. We are devotees of Krishna, the Supreme Personality of
Godhead.

> And I will gladly refrain from ragging on you until I have read
> "The" book.  Will you please mail me a copy, as it is currently
> not available on any planes of existness that I am inhabiting
> at this time.

You may get the book from the Bhaktivedanta Institute in San Diego at
619-272-8145.

> Or should I have said "we"?  We are so confused.

Say "we" if there is a "we".

Sincerely,
Kalki Dasa

       -------------------------------------------------------
      |  Don't forget to chant:   Hare Krishna Hare Krishna   |
      |                           Krishna Krishna Hare Hare   |
      |                           Hare Rama Hare Rama         |
      |                           Rama Rama Hare Hare         |
      |                                                       |
      |   Kalki's Infoline BBS Aiken, South Carolina, USA     |
      |        (kalki33!kalki@lakes.trenton.sc.us)            |
       -------------------------------------------------------
From: MANDTBACKA@finabo.abo.fi (Mats Andtbacka Ktf92)
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Organization: Unorganized Usenet Postings UnInc.
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 09:56:27 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.23

In <Dso3TB12w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:

> kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes: 
>>   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?

      That's not quite what he said... It might be quite some task to
*model it mathematically*, I think you'll agree.

> 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 is possible - that everything we do, we do on some form of
faith or other, I mean. If so, what is faith? I still think molecular
evolution is *much more probable* than anything else put forth, though.

>>>> In actual fact, the probability of evolution of higher life forms is
>>>> bounded below by 0 and bounded above by 1.  Any more definite statement
>>>> is an exercise in intellectual fraud.

      That depends on how you calculate the probability of molecular
evolution. This is YOUR assumption, and I guess it's as good as mine -
now, exactly why should I switch assumption, if yours is no better?

      Rest of your posting - a *lot* - deleted, as it went a bit over my
head, I'm afraid. This point I'd wish to make: Living blobs of organic
(and some inorganic) would have a definite evolutionary advantage over
dead blobs of organic and inorganic matter, when in an environment more
or less hostile to the continued existence of such blobs. Thus, life
could (and probably would) evolve.

 - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - 
           Opinions? What's that, mom - some new kind of dessert?
     "Every day for us, something new / Open mind for a different view /
                       And nothing else matters..."     ---     Metallica
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: jgacker@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (Paul Hubanks)
Subject: Re: noah's ark
Organization: Goddard Space Flight Center
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 16:54:56 GMT

William E. Hamilton CS50 CS/50 (hamilton@hydra.cs.gmr.com) wrote:

: Agreed. But still the term creationist, defined as one who believes that
: God created the universe, has its utility in conservative Christian
: circles.  Tell a conservative Christian you're not a creationist and
: many of them will prepare for battle. Any further opportunity for
: communication is lost. On the other hand, if you tell them, as I do,
: "I'm a creationist, but not the young-earth variety, " some of them will
: be willing to discuss what you mean and why you take that position. Since one
: of my passions in life is to try to communicate to Christians why the age
: of the earth and the age of the universe and the specific methods God
:used to develop things are not what the Scriptures are talking about, I prefer
: to use terminology that keeps communication lines open. As I said above,
: it doesn't always keep them open. But that's a risk I have to take to find
: those who are willing to learn. And that's what I and other Christians 
: who want the Christian community to attack real, not imaginary, targets 
: must do if we want to change the situation.

	Very good point.

: >> 	Welcome to t.o. and CWACK (just organized today, by the way).
: >> Who else is willing to be a CWACKer?

:I'm sorry. I saw the definition, but didn't save it and now I've forgotten it.
: Was it something like Christians Wanting to Abolish Crackpot Kreationism?
	
	That's a great alternate!  It's actually "Christians Who Aren't
Crackpot Kreationists".  The spelling was to connote a little of the
"Keystone Kops" ludicrousness of the ICR and their ilk.
	And I wanted it to be like my name.  Oops, lost my humility there.

: I'm in sympathy with the aims, but the spelling of the last word makes me
: cringe. I guess I've seen that sort of thing too many times in 
: advertising copy. Actually your acronym would be pronounced the same way
: if you spelled it with a "C". Just a suggestion from an incurably obnoxious
: traditionalist on the subject of spelling - but don't get me going on
: that one.
: 
: Bill Hamilton

	Jim ACKer
	jgacker@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov
From: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Date: Sat, 07 Nov 92 04:06:01 EST
Reply-To: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Organization: Kalki's Infoline BBS, Aiken, SC, USA

jgacker@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker) writes:

> 	#1, Kalki, you will now be asked to provide the straightforward
> proof so that it can be cut into little itsy-bitsy pieces.

Why do you think we listed the title of the book?
Read it, it's important.


Sincerely,
Kalki Dasa

       -------------------------------------------------------
      |  Don't forget to chant:   Hare Krishna Hare Krishna   |
      |                           Krishna Krishna Hare Hare   |
      |                           Hare Rama Hare Rama         |
      |                           Rama Rama Hare Hare         |
      |                                                       |
      |   Kalki's Infoline BBS Aiken, South Carolina, USA     |
      |        (kalki33!kalki@lakes.trenton.sc.us)            |
       -------------------------------------------------------
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: Creation vs. evolution
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 15:03:51 GMT

In article <1992Nov13.094728.10798@smds.com>, rh@smds.com (Richard Harter)
writes:
> As I understand it The Theory of Creationism claims that an exact account
> of the history of the universe can be found in the King James version of
> the Bible.  It also claims that any discrepancy between that account
> and scientific theory is the caused by The Great Satanic Conspiracy.
> At this point the scientific establishment has been corrupted by the
> Satanic Conspiracy that it almost impossible to sort out true science
> from Satanic science.  [Molecular biologist are particularly corrupt.]

  No, no, no.  This is the FoC ("Fact" of Creation).  The ToC (Theory of
Creation) is the mechanisms behind this, and any falsifiable predictions they
would make.

  I would guess (maybe this will jump start C'ists into a more formal proof)
that the ToC would be more along the lines of:

  1st Law of Creationism.  Evolution is false.
  2nd Law of Creationism.  The KJV is the correct translation and interpretation
of the events in Genesis.  It should be taken literally.
  3rd Law of Creationism.  The satanic conspiracy exists, it is conspiring
against Christianity in the scientific community.
  4th Law of Creationism.  Oh yeah, and there will be some sort of something or
other that shows that all living creatures just suddenly appeared, or something
like that.  Y'know what I mean?

 |  __L__
-|-  ___  Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub
 |  | o | kv07@iastate.edu
 |/ `---' Iowa State University
/|   ___  Math Department
 |  |___| 400 Carver Hall
 |  |___| Ames, IA  50011
 J  _____
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: onar@hsr.no (Onar Aam)
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Organization: Rogaland University Centre
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 16:13:15 GMT

Kalki Dasa writes:

>First point: The known laws of physics possess low information content.
>Second point: biological organisms possess high information content.




First point:  The rules of chess possess low information content
Second point: the number of possible games are some 10^70 i.e. high information
content.


The formula  Xnext = rX(1-X) simulates populations seasonaly. For r = 1.5 the
poulation is driven towards an equilibrium i.e. low information content. As 
r --> 4 the equation produces random behaviour i.e. high information content. 
This is a good example of how simple relations can produce complex behaviour.
If you don't belive it, Kalki, then try it out yourself on your HP.



Onar.
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Subject: Re: noah's ark
Reply-To: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 17:09:28 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.112019.1@woods.ulowell.edu>, cotera@woods.ulowell.edu
writes:
> Then how did Noah's Ark get on top of a mountain? Or did it evolve there over
> the past million years?
> --Ray Cote

   Could you post some photos or something?  I was unaware anyone had found an
Ark dating before the advent of portable movie sets and gaffers :)

Dan
Danwell@IASTATE.EDU
From: throopw@sheol.UUCP (Wayne Throop)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Holden, heat, temperature, and the 2nd law
Summary: oops
Date: 06 Nov 92 00:31:42 GMT

An email correspondent taps me on my metaphorical shoulder:

:: trust Ted not to even know which law he's talking about...
: Uh, allow me to quote Clausius' statement of the second law: "A
: transformation whose only final result is to transfer heat from a body
: at a given temperature to a body at a higher temperature is impossible."
: (this version of the law is, of course, equivalent to the more popular
: versions involving entropy.)

Shhhhhh!   Maybe nobody else will notice!

Ah, well.  I'm so used to Ted making basic mistakes, I'm led into one
myself, by only superficially reviewing the sections on thermodynamics
of the college physics texts I retain, and being overquick to try to
point out a Holden error.

Let that be a lesson to me.  Ted doesn't *always* get basic facts wrong.
This should have been doubly apparent to me, since I've several times
chided others for pointing out errors Ted doesn't make.

Nevertheless, Ted IS still commiting the error of supposing that a
higher rate of heat input necessarily implies a higher temperature.
Ted is definitely, absolutely, and conclusively incorrect in this
supposition.  A lower rate of heat input leading to a higher
temperature does NOT imply a transfer of heat from a cooler object to a
hotter one.  Therefore a lower rate of heat input leading to a higher
temperature does NOT conflict with thermodynamics.
--
Wayne Throop  ...!mcnc!dg-rtp!sheol!throopw
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: bobb@tekig1.PEN.TEK.COM (Robert W Bales)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Bales is a liar: evidence - one case
Date: 10 Nov 92 20:41:11 GMT


I wrote:

>}This is a direct challenge: either prove I am a liar or stop accusing me.

Jim Meritt responded:

>OK.  You are a liar.  Examples have been provided.

The only thing which could prove me a liar is an example of something which I
said which was knowinly untrue.  As I have pointed out a number of times, and
have showed in some cases *using direct quotes taken from my net postings*,
these are not examples of my lies.  In all of the time Jim has called me a
liar, *no* valid examples have been provided.

>Why don't you back up a dozen or so of your assertions that, when challenged,
>you dropped?  Say:

I have dealt with this before.  Besides, an assertion which is not completely
backed up is an entirely different thing than a lie.

Jim then references a posting which he says contains a lie:

For this section,

>>  me
>   Stan Friesen (I think)
$   Jim Meritt

>>  Another thing. Please don't fall into the trap of calling Creationism a
>> THEORY. It is not. A theory, by definition, MUST be capable of enduring
>> the scientific method: Hypothesize, Experiment, Observe, Conclude.
>
>Creationism is capable of enduring the scientific method, as defined here.
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

$It is my assertion that this is a lie.

To show this is a lie, Jim would have to show that is a false ststement and
that I knew it wwas false when I wrote it.  But what case does he make?  He
lists a number of question about creationism and the scientific method which
he says I have never answered.  As I will show, I have answered them.  But
assume, for the sake of argument, that I hadn't.  Assume that every word Jim
says about me in the rest of the example is true.  The result -- the MOST the
example could show -- is that the statement is unsubstaniated.  Being
unsubstantiated does not show it to be false, so obviosly does not show that I
know it to be false.

Simply put, the example is incapable of showing me to be a liar.  However,
I'll not leave it there.  I'll show that I have addressed these questions.
But since I've been criticized for too-long postings, I'll do it in another
posting.

   Bob Bales
   Tektronix, Inc.

I help Tektronix make their instruments. They don't help me make my opinions.
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: Holden, heat, temperature, and the 2nd law
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 16:56:44 GMT

In article <102@fedfil.UUCP>, news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
> In article <720586950@sheol.UUCP>, throopw@sheol.UUCP (Wayne Throop) writes:
> *There are several ways in which higher heat flux does not imply higher
> *temperature, and even ways that a higher total heat content doesn't
> *imply a higher temperature, but perhaps the most relevant one is
> *embodied in this analogy: add heat at one rate to a covered pot of
> *water, and heat at many times that rate to an otherwise identical
> *uncovered pot of water.  With many times the heat, the uncovered pot
> *must "therefore" be "hotter", right?  Wrong. 
> 
> Neat analogy, Wayne.  Show me the lid on Venus' atmosphere.  The whole
> thing is totally uncovered, heat DOES escape, apparently via IR flux at 
> very low altitudes (Suomi et. al. as has been often noted, again
> assuming you don't monkey with the raw data to make it conform to
> uniformitarian schemes because everybody knows they are right), and via
> concentric waves at higher altitudes.

  Ted, how could you have actually read more than the first sentance of the
paragraph right after the one you responded to and still ask that question?

  Try read ing the whole post next time you respond.  Wayne made it clear that
the atmosphere IS the lid.  The lid goes over the surface, not the atmosphere. 
This was not only made clear, but was stated so directly that there was no
chance anybody who had actually so much as glanced over it could have missed
it.

  Ted, PLEASE read what you are responding to.

> *The crucial issue is not only how fast heat is pumped into a system,
> *but how fast it can escape.  The situation on Venus' surface is
> *analogous to a covered pot, and the atmosphere to an uncovered pot.
> *(In fact, the first is covered by the second...)

  See?

 |  __L__
-|-  ___  Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub
 |  | o | kv07@iastate.edu
 |/ `---' Iowa State University
/|   ___  Math Department
 |  |___| 400 Carver Hall
 |  |___| Ames, IA  50011
 J  _____