HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mroussel@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Marc Roussel)
Subject: Re: Entropy of the Universe, (was Re: Genesis - fact or fiction)
Organization: Department of Chemistry, University of Toronto
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 17:03:01 GMT

In article <25671@dog.ee.lbl.gov> sichase@csa3.lbl.gov writes:
>In article <1992Aug21.212447.17947@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca>,
>mroussel@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Marc Roussel) writes...
>>     We should not refute one bogus argument with another.  Viruses do
>>not self-replicate so they cannot be primitive organisms (i.e. they have
>>to have arisen after the self-replicators).
>
>This is a false conclusion.  The only fair conlusion is that if viruses
>preexisted other self-replicators, that at some point they jettisoned their
>own replicating mechanism in order to be more efficient replicators.   
>They don't have to waste energy constructing reproductive apparatus.  All
>available energy goes into making genetic information and a shell to stuff
>it in.

     You give the impression that you think that viruses have their own
metabolic machinery.  They don't.  A virus outside of a host cell is an
inert thing:  Viruses only contain genetic material (RNA and DNA).
(Source: Watson et al., Molecular Biology of the Gene, 4th ed.
(Benjamin/Cummings: Menlo Park, 1987), v.1, p.185.)  They have no energy
to either use or waste.
     Your hypothesis that viruses evolved as cells that jetisoned their
machinery is at variance with current thinking:

	  The precursors of the first viruses were probably small
	  nucleic acid fragments that developed the ability to multiply
	  independently of the chromosomes of their host cells.  Perhaps
	  the precursors of RNA viruses resembled the viroids found in
	  some plant cells; these small RNA circles - only 300 to 400
	  nucleotides long - are replicated entirely by plant cell
	  enzymes since they do not code for any protein.  [...]  DNA
	  viruses may have evolved from small circular fragments
	  accidentally created from a piece of cell chromosome.

	       Alberts et al., Molecular Biology of the Cell (Garland:
	       New York, 1983), p.239.

As I understand it, there is support for this position not only in the
viroid model, but also in the similarity of some viral sequences to
sequences of the host cells.  I stand by my original comment.

				Marc R. Roussel
                                mroussel@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley)
Subject: Re: *I* am THE way.
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 21:36:29 GMT

Mike Serafin writes:

>Stephen Buckley writes:

>>:   judgement is upon us because we sin and disobey god.  the punishment
>>: for sin is death.  jesus bore that punishment for us all.  those who
>>: accept his offer are saved.  standard christian line.  i personally 
>>: don't know for sure what happens with those who don't hear of jesus, but
>>: it's moot because i know of him and i am judged on whether or not i
>>: accept his salvation--not on my actions in life beyond choosing him
>>: or not.

>   Wrong, you are not judge only on the fact that you accept his 
>   salvation.  You must accept his savlation and follow the word of
>   God.  You will still be judged based on your actions after you 
>   accept Jesus Christ as Lord and saviour.  

  good point.  you're right.  i was thinking more in the sense of
the necessity of acting on the information i have and not abandoning
my knowledge because some people haven't heard of jesus.
From: akbloom@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (Keith Bloom)
Newsgroups: alt.atheists,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Biblical errors
Date: 22 Aug 92 13:36:32 GMT
Organization: The Johns Hopkins University


sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley) writes:

>  i've heard the pi=3 thing refered to a few times and i can't find it
>in kj or niv, can someone cite me chapter and verse?  thanks.

1 Kings 7:23, plus a little interpretation.


Keith
Newsgroups: alt.atheists,talk.religion.misc
From: tensmekl@infonode.ingr.com (Kermit Tensmeyer)
Subject: Re: Biblical errors
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 21:57:00 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.135427.2385@cs.joensuu.fi> asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
>jmeritt@rod.mitre.org (Jim Meritt) writes:
>
>
>>I've had a little success with the historical error collections (send more,
>>including things like anachronisms), now how about flat-out biblical errors?
>>Things like the famous "pi=3" and "grasshopper with four legs".
>
>	Neither of them is an error, sorry. 
>
>		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint
>
 Gee, _What_ don't you consider to be an error? That Pi > 3 or that
 Pi = 3 (that was a statment by the Indiana Legisture in a bill
 initiated by an IU math professor)   or that grasshoppers are insects
 and have 6 legs (not 4).

 Or does your assertion simply include that the bible has no "flat-out"
 errors?






-- 
         Kermit Tensmeyer                         | Intergraph Corporation
Life is sometimes a bowl of Cherries; Watch out for the pits;
   klt@kt8127.b23a.ingr.com                       | 
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:13943 talk.origins:9473
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Some questions for Laura. Please read it.
From: sbishop@desire.wright.edu
Date: 13 Aug 92 12:21:09 EST
Organization: Wright State University 

In article <1992Aug12.133830.9353@cs.joensuu.fi>, asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
> kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:
>>> 	From the facts today's science has given to us. 
> 
>>  Could you be more precise?  What facts are these that eliminate
>>macroevolution?  Do you have any references to scientific journals?
> 
> 	They're called missing links. Any textbook will do. 
> -- 

Sigh.... 'Missing links' (not a very accurate term, but, obviously we
are not talking to a science student here) are evidence FOR macroevolution!

Sue

> 
> 		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint
>       Drusba ? Absurd !               ;     Edom mode    
>       E, Roma ? Amore !               ;     Devil lived
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley)
Subject: Re: Agnostics and Athiests
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 06:09:26 GMT

Kent Sandvik writes:

>i wrote:

>>  true, god's existence is unverifiable thus empirical logic cannot support
>>or deny his existence.  that's why it's important to look to more than
>>logic to decide upon god.

>So we need to apply the same methods as in the case if we believe
>in fairies or not?

  yeah!  i'm serious.  and this reduction to absurdity is what i'm getting
at when i say empirical data can only do so much to explain the world.  there
is more around that what is bounded by the parameters of empirical data.

  and if the reality of fairies is something that i can depend on for
salvation, healing and spiritual peace, in a way more profound than from
what i get from jesus, then i'll look at them.

  until then...

---                          
     Stephen Buckley        /    the meaning of life is the answer
     sbuckley@sfu.ca       /      to God's question in the Bible:
   TrueNorthStrong&Free   /        
      1-800-REALITY      /    "What are you going to do with my Son?"                   
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:13913 talk.origins:9455
From: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Some questions for Laura. Please read it.
Date: 12 Aug 92 13:45:20 GMT
Organization: University of Joensuu

kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:
>  Now this has always been amusing to me.  What exactly are "missing links"?

	Missing links are missing from macroevolution. One of those is between 
	man and ape (bad wording, but I think you understand). It's the greatest
	challenge of modern evolution and I claim that those links (between 
	species) are missing because they have never existed. Sadly, no-one can
	ever prove anything. 

>  It seems every time a transitional fossil is found, it is used to provide
>evidence for creationism because it leaves two gaps where there was once one. 
>Is it even possible to provide a detailed enough transition that you would admit
>all transitional fossils have been found?  A great many transitional fossils are
>known, some so detailed you need to be an expert in the field to detect the
>differences in the chain.

	Yes. Until the missing link comes. 

	Fossil records:

		.......... . . .  . .  . . .                   . . ... ..
		                              (missing link)

		==========================================================>
				time
-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint
      Drusba ? Absurd !               ;     Edom mode    
      E, Roma ? Amore !               ;     Devil lived
From: aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu (Scott Aaron)
Subject: Re: Jesus denied he was God
Reply-To: aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu
Organization: Brandeis University
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 16:52:23 GMT

In article <19920813225048ECL4JN2@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU>, ECL4JN2@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU (Jack Newsbaum) writes:
>That's about the easiest question I've been asked this month. Because
>Jesus clearly says that none is good but God alone. Since Jesus is
>rebuking the man for calling him good, it is obvious that his reason
>for doing so is that he does not want to arrogate to himself an
>adjective that he believes should only be applied to God. Couldn't
>be any simpler than that.

But, to see a rebuke in Jesus' words is an interpretation based on your
personal thoughts on the matter.  The same goes for those who see a claim
to divinity here.

The question Jesus asks is simple.  The interpretation (both views) is FAR
from simple.

  -- Scott @Brandeis

                           I asked Jesus,
                     "How much do you love me?"
                     "This much," He answered;
                        and He stretched out
                         His arms and died.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: jeon@milton.u.washington.edu (Sangyong Jeon)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: You don't get it, do you? (was Laura questions)
Date: 21 Aug 92 09:36:51 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle


You don't get it, do you?
If you think Noah, a Jew, was the common ancestor of all people,
European, African, Asian, Pacific, Indian, etc; that is, a family of
Jewish people became European, African, Asian, Pacific, Indian, etc, 
in about 5000 years (give or take a millenium), what can I say, 

take that fingers off the key board. 

Computer is one of the product of human logic. If you don't believe in
logic and still use computer, you are being hypocritical. 
Perhaps, being hypocritical is much better than going to hell?

As an atheist, I am puzzled, much puzzled. 
Why do you Christians feel the need to force your belief on any one
you see?
Why do you think majority of ancient people didn't have a clue who the
hell was the god of OT? 
If there is no god, why is that so horrible?
Don't you ever think about earth as it is, the mixture of various
culture, not just your own, and why it is so?

And why, oh, why do you presume you only have the right moral values
to impose on other people when majority of Christians don't even think
about to "...sell all you have and give to the poor...[Mark 10:21]"?

Global flood five thousand years ago?
The aging [nuclear] process different five thousand years ago and now? 
The astronomical implication alone boggles the mind.
What did lions eat on board the ark?  Some herbivore, extinct now
because lions ate the only pair?
Fishes and kelps abound during flood time?
Do you know how much food a T. Rex. needs a day?
And do you know how many speices of dinosaur were there?
Oh, I forget, Dinosaur bones were buried by the devil to confuse
people, or buried by god to test the faith of christians.

For that matter, what did tigers eat when they came out of the ark?
Grass? Herbivores, extinct now because the tigers ate them?
Let's see, lions and tigers and leopards and wolves and foxes and
cougars and panthers and cheetahs have to feed themselves about once
three days, now given the birth rate of most herbivores, not many
would have survived the post-ark feeding frenzy of carnivores. 
Oh, I see, there were a lot of corpses lying around because of the
flood, yes that must be it.

I remember a christian in the net saying that HE\SHE doesn't want to
convert anyone, he\she just want to tell people what he\she believes
and people can choose whatever they want to choose. Think about it,
logically. It grows on you till you cry.
Why ask why?
You mean reason is no reason at all, and computer is god?

Jeon

Opinions expressed here are my resposibility and mine only.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: An open question...
Organization: I am that I am, I am I am I am
	<sbuckley.714246566@sfu.ca>
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 20:30:24 GMT

In article <sbuckley.714246566@sfu.ca> 
sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley) writes:
<  belief in god is only undue for you because there is no proof in the
<means you would accept.  i accept broader parameters.  it's not undue
<for me.  don't stop forgetting that i spent a decade convinced it was
<undue.  i didn't just wake up one morning feeling intellectually weak
<and i just jumped at salvation.  it was a long arduous process of having
<my incredulity appeased.  god can fulfill all incredulity: doubting
<thomas is the prime example.

Why do I find this story so difficult to believe? You spent ten years in the
wilderness and you come back to us sporting a crutch which you say is now
permanent? It seems to me that you have only found a new slave master. What
were you doing all those years of exile? Did freedom chase you to the crutch?

<incredulity is fine because he can appease
<any amount of it.  it is disbelieving people he will not take home with him.

Disbelieving in what? Your beliefs? What makes you think that you have THE
beliefs? Have you ever questioned whether or not that it may be you who
is disbelieving? What makes you think you've got the right beliefs? Given
the number of options of "THE ONLY WAY", it seems that the odds of you
choosing the correct one would be nil. Perhaps you'd better study up on all
of the options to cover your bet.

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: An open question...
Organization: Intel Corporation, Santa Clara, CA USA
	<sbuckley.714120069@sfu.ca>
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 18:43:40 GMT

In article <sbuckley.714120069@sfu.ca> 
sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley) writes:
>  heaven on earth is not promised.  this is a world where suffering exists.
>debating the origin of suffering is another thread, but when i suffer
>i do make it through via the grace of god lifting me out.  what's wrong
>with god as a crutch when there is a whole industry of self-help books,
>therapists and analysts all there to help people cope with suffering.

Crutch is good, to support one, until one can do the freedom walk on one's
own. One can not do freedom walk with crutch, but one can not do freedom walk
unless one is free. In the end crutch is only crutch, not good or bad, just 
crutch. Be careful with crutch, use too long and muscles atropy. Joyful 
participation in the sorrows of the world, that is the way of no crutch needed.

As for Heaven on Earth, yes this is true:

I say preacher man don't tell me, Heaven is not on the Earth
I know you don't know, what life is really worth
You say all that glitters is gold, half the story have never been told
So now you've seen the light, you've got to stand up for your right
Get Up! Stan' Up! Stan' up for your right!
You know we're sick and tired of your boosh*t game
You lie and go to Heaven in a Jesus name
We know what you don't understand
The mighty God is a living man
So now we've seen the light, we're going to stand up for our right
Get Up! Stan' Up! Don't give up the fight!

B.Marley   Jah ... Ras Tafari!

Music hits you hard, but you don't feel pain. Hit me with music.

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: corey@sdf.lonestar.org (Corey Carroll)
Subject: Re: Some questions for Laura. Please read it.
Organization: sdf Public Access UNIX, Dallas--unrestricted free shell access
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 23:12:25 GMT

In article <Bsxpw5.911@nntp-sc.Intel.COM> pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey) writes:
>In article <1246@esl.ESL.COM> markwc@barney.esl.com (Mark Christiansen) writes:
>>Sounds like we need to have a modern day prophet to help clear up
>>these multiple translation/mistranslation problems before we can
>>really discuss points in the Bible.
>
>And that modern day prophet is ... [drumroll please] ... YOU! Only you can
>interpret the written word for yourself, only your beliefs are valid for
>yourself. This is what it means to be an individual. This is what it means
>to be free. Now, walk that freedom walk and talk that freedom talk. Realize
>the prophet and profit in you. The walls must come down, the era of strong
>central government and strong central church is over. Welcome the era of the
>free, self-thinking, individual. You are number 1, the king is no more!
>
>Be seeing you!
>

I think this whole "prophet" thing is absurd.  Suppose we have some
lunatic who claims to be a prophet...and i'm sure there is no shortage
of them...how do we know if he's crazy or if he's actually receiving
TRUE visions from GOD?!?!

-- 
"All religions make me wanna throw up!"
"All religions make me sick!" - Dead Kennedys, Religious Vomit

corey@sdf.lonestar.org                       ..!uunet!convex!egsner!sdf!corey
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!
Date: 20 Aug 92 20:24:16 GMT
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA

In article <f0tT03R265oV00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> jloucks@uts.amdahl.com (Jim Loucks) writes:
}m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
}>In article <74uq03T562o200@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> jloucks@uts.amdahl.com (Jim Loucks) writes:
}>}kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:
}>}> If God's intention was to confuse us wouldn't he have
}>}>made the tree rings, ice cores, lake bottoms, and coral reefs all disagree to
}>}>some extent as a hint?
}>}
}>}His intention was not to confuse us.
}
}>Astounding!  You are so powerful as to know the hidden intentions of GOD!!!
}>Omniscient, perhaps?
}
}Yo Jim, God wants you to get to know Him, the choice is yours and yours
}alone.

I have better taste than to be associated with what you have been describing.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Evidence of God
Summary: all written word is the word of humans, the true ecce homo
Keywords: Luke 14: 26
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
	<1992Aug21.160456.19906@spdc.ti.com>
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 00:13:42 GMT

In article <1992Aug21.160456.19906@spdc.ti.com> 
serafin@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Mike Serafin) writes:
>The details of Catholicism show only MAN's fickleness in his interpretation of
>God's Word.  God's Word is permanent and non-changing. Man changes his
>interpretation of the Word (wrongfully) to achieve humanistic desires.  

Oh, what the heck, I'll play along. And what would "God's Word" be
exactly? As Eric the Great would say, "Do you have a reference?"

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: god and empiricism
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 14:56:18 GMT

In article <sbuckley.714121616@sfu.ca> sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley) writes:
>rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>Mr. Buckley: You cite your Jesus spiritual experiences as evidence
>>of the existence of Jesus, yet despite the fact that you admit
>>that people have had non-Jesus spiritual experiences, you do not
>>consider this to be evidence of the existence of other deities.
>>[Christianity is not a polytheistic religion in the sense
>>that it does not accept e.g. the existence of Vishnu].
>>That is known as special pleading.
>
>  i grant that non-jesus spiritual experiences exist, but that they
>are not with other deities. God(tm) is one god and all those other
>non-jesus things are certainly spiritual entities with spiritual power
>but they are not the creator/healer/saviour/etc.
Let me get this quite clear:
There are other nonGod spiritual entities wandering around saying
that THEY are God??

But wouldn't they be taking people away from the true God and
therefore be evil? Hence probably demons? Or are you postulating
an entirely separate classification or nondemon, nonGod spiritual
entitities. In this case, since these spiritual entities say that
THEY are top God, and yours says that IT is top God, why should
I believe yours and not theirs?
-Ekr




-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                     We hack anything.
                       I will hack Unix for food.
From: exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Jesus denied he was God
Date: 14 Aug 92 14:20:40 GMT
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.

In article <1992Aug9.120810.18553@engage.pko.dec.com> pub@riscee.pko.dec.com (Publius) writes:
>From: pub@riscee.pko.dec.com (Publius)
>Subject: Re: Jesus denied he was God
>Date: Sun, 9 Aug 1992 12:08:10 GMT

>In article <19920808204423ECL4JN2@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU> ECL4JN2@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU (Jack Newsbaum) writes:
>>
>>"As he was setting out on a journey, a man ran up and knelt before him
>>and asked him. 'Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?'
>>Jesus said to him, 'Why do you call me good?' No one is good but God
>>alone.'" (Mark 10:17-18)
>>
>>I'm not quite sure how this got past the censors of the early Church,
>>but it seems rather clear from this passage that Jesus did not regard
>>himself as God, and actually rebuked an admirer for using language which
>>might suggest that.

>Mark 10:17-18 does NOT deny the Deity of Christ.  It simply shows
>that during His earthly journey, the Lord set aside His divine
>poragative and humbled Himself to take the position of a human being.
>This is in perfect harmony with the very nature of Incarnation,
>expressed so beautifully in Philippians 2:5-8.

>        "Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
>         Who, being in very nature God, does not consider equality
>         with God something to be grasped, being made himself
>         nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made
>         in human likeness, and being found in appearance as a man,
>         he humbled himself and became obedient to death - even
>         death on a cross!"
>                                              - Philippians 2:5-8

>Regards,
>-- 
>For Christ and His Kingdom
>-- Publius
>Disclaimer: These opinions are mine, all mine, mine alone.

Biblical scholars (Dodd in particular) claim that what Jesus meant there 
was that one should not regard him as good unless he is prepared to regard 
him as God, for only God is good, in relevant sense of 'good' intended there.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kenny Bell                          *        Welcome to Mind Wars
Ericsson Network Systems, Inc       *        Abstract Arts BBS 386-7907
P.O. Box 833875                     *        Severity with oneself is heroism.
Richardson, TX 75083-3875           *        --A.G.Sertillanges (France, 1943)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,sci.physics,sci.chem