HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: livesey@solntze.esd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Question for Creationists
Date: 27 Sep 92 02:44:58 GMT
Organization: sgi

In article <1457@esl.ESL.COM>, markwc@barney.esl.com (Mark Christiansen) writes:
|> In article <qa8a0cc@zola.esd.sgi.com>
|> livesey@solntze.esd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
|> 
|> >In article <1452@esl.ESL.COM>
|> markwc@barney.esl.com (Mark Christiansen) writes:
|> 
|> >|> In article <1992Sep24.164701.8607@st-andrews.ac.uk>
|> >|> mrl@st-andrews.ac.uk (  Michael Ladomery) writes:
|> 
|> >|> >In article <1433@esl.ESL.COM>
|> >|> >>markwc@barney.esl.com (Mark Christiansen) writes:
|> 
|> >|> >>Circular arguments exist in science as well:
|> 
|> >|> >>"We know this because scientific writings tell us so, and we know that
|> >|> >>scientific writings are correct because the scientists tell us so
|> >|> >>through their writings."
|> 
|> >|> >But much scientific writing is filled with hypotheticals, not gospel
|> >|> >truths!  Words and phrases like "putative"; "it has been shown
|> >|> >before"; "at least in this system"; "it would seem likely to us" etc
|> >|> >etc are part of the accepted style (here I'm referring to journal
|> >|> >articles etc)
|> 
|> >|> >Could you find a specific example of a circular argument used in
|> >|> >science that you've come across? I'm sure there are examples.
|> 
|> >|> I'm not talking about those who do scientific research here.  I
|> >|> speaking of the majority of people who simply take what the scientist
|> >|> says on faith.  The general public does not do scientific research at
|> >|> all and never look at scientific journals.
|> 
|> >Well, I baffled.   First you say "Circular arguments exist in 
|> >science as well" and seem to say that we can only take Science 
|> >on the authroity of Scientists.
|> 
|> >Then, when someone asks for examples, you put forward a different 
|> >position which seems to be that some people *do* take science on 
|> >Faith.
|> 
|> Circular arguments do exist for a majority of people; I have not
|> contradicted myself or sidestepped the issue.  I've clarified my
|> position that many people have "faith" in science and the scientist
|> much like many people have faith in religious leaders.

"Circular arguments do exist" is not the same as "Circular 
arguments exist in science as well".  I guess we might all 
agree that someone somewhere who knows very little about 
Science thinks Science is valid only becasue some some Scientist
told him.   This is *not* the same as saying that the general
"we" depend on circualr arguments or that circular arguments
are what Science depends on.

|> 
|> >So which is it?  Can you see that there is a difference?    Do
|> >you realise that a good part of Science is in trying to make sure 
|> >that you don't have to take things on faith?
|> 
|> What world do you live in?  Look around at all the people who take
|> science on faith.

What does that have to do with you claim to find circular
arguments *in* Science.   These people are laymen w.r.t
Science, so what do they have to do with what's *in* 
Science?

jon.
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Subject: Re: Methinks it's like a weasel (Blind Watchmaker)
Organization: University of Joensuu
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 13:42:58 GMT

bruce@supr.scm.liv.ac.uk (Bruce Stephens) writes:
>You seem to be ignoring selection.  Dawkins quite clearly states that
>his program uses selection, and discusses how this relates to natural
>selection.  

	He ignored it himself - correctly - in this case: When the life
	was supposed to evolve there was no selection, just like you mix n 
	chemicals - no selection.

>Here's another example: suppose I want to roll six sixes (with six
>dice).  How many rolls would I expect to need if
>     a) I just keep rolling all six until they all come up sixes?
>     b) If I take out any that come up sixes and just reroll the rest?

>The answer for b is much less than a, because the two situations are
>quite different.  Similarly (as any biologist should know) evolution
>is not the same as pure chance; it entails selection.  The selection
>is much less effective than either Dawkins' analogy or the dice
>analogy, but it's there all the same: if you ignore it, you're
>ignoring an essential part of evolutionary theory, and you wouldn't
>want to do that, would you?

	You are correct with this point, yes. 
-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint

	No ITU, love, evolution.           Tuusniemi ! Siis imein suut !
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: emc@doe.carleton.ca (Eli Chiprout)
Subject: Genesis (was Deja vu all over again)
Organization: Dept. of Electronics, Carleton University
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 18:51:26 GMT

In <1126@tdat.teradata.COM> swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen) writes:
>It depends on where you start.  If you take the Bible as a source of
>*spiritual* truth, then Genesis is *not* (in this sense) proven wrong
>by the scientific evidence.  Of course this is not a *literal* reading
>of Genesis, but it does retain the *message* in it.

>Now, from this position there is no particular reason to believe that
>a non-literal Genesis casts doubt on any of the spiritual truths in the
>Bible.  Yes, it does open the way to doubt the historical reality of other
>passages, but so what?  The historical reality is not what the book is about
>any way.

Please no more of this crap.  What gives you the right to dissect the texts
in this manner?  How do you discern this "spiritual" truth from the "historical"
truth?  Are the former marked in red letters?  Or is spiritual truth 
considered to be what is not in conflict with your present morality?
The writers of Genesis would have turned in their graves if they knew
how their simple writings meant to convey their world view were being
so sterilized.

>sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
>  or
>Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
--
Eli Chiprout
Dept. of Electronics
Carleton University	
emc@doe.carleton.ca	
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: lking@athena.mit.edu (Loren King)
Subject: Re: New Evidence for Creation! NOT!!
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 18:52:39 GMT


In article <1992Oct1.163545@IASTATE.EDU>, danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
writes:

|>    Okay, I'm a fool.  He WAS joking. (Wiping egg from face, 
|> looking embarrased).
|> 
|> Dan
|> Danwell@IASTATE.EDU


Yeah, me too ... boy is my face red!  It's just so hard to be sure ....
parodying creationists is a lot like trying to parody the National
Inquirer (which was tried a few years back), in that the joke is so damn
similar to the original!

L. King
From: markwc@barney.esl.com (Mark Christiansen)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: self-deceptive belief maintenance
Date: 1 Oct 92 08:22:19 GMT
Distribution: world,local
Organization: ESL Inc., Sunnyvale, CA

In article <1156@tdat.teradata.COM>
swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen) writes:

>In article <1487@esl.ESL.COM>
>markwc@barney.esl.com (Mark Christiansen) writes:

>|In other words, creationism does not include the doctrine that
>|ascribes the origins of all things to God's acts of creation using
>|evolution?

>That is correct, in that the only useful distinction to be made is
>between those who insist onm a supernaturalist explanation for
>origins, and those who accept the scientific evidence.

By "supernaturalist explanation" are you referring to some kind of
creation that that cannot be discovered through scientific research?
That is the interpetation I have after reading the next paragraph.

>The 'theistic evolution' position is indistinghuisable from science
>in respect to the nature of the history accepted, so it does not
>really need a special term.

Mark
-- 
   We can lick gravity, but sometimes the paperwork is overwhelming.
   -- Wernher von Braun
From: livesey@solntze.esd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Abuse By t.o Regulars
Date: 3 Oct 92 00:27:36 GMT
Organization: sgi

In article <REUS.92Sep29163531@klein.euromath.dk>, reus@klein.euromath.dk (Jens Peter Reus Christensen) writes:
|> 
|>    
|> 
|>    They can start with telling us what the "theory of 'creationism'"
|>    is. That I'd like to read.
|> ****
|> Despite being both scientist and creationist I do not possess a
|> " theory of creationism " ! I am aware of some but they are 
|> outdated as Scientific theories . I do not share most "theories"
|> appearing on the net which sounds to me like American political
|> speaches.

Then what is it to be a Creationist without a theory?   I can
think of several things it might be:

   -	A person who thinks that evolution conflicts with religion,
	and so has religious objections to evolution, but has
	nothing to put in its place.   That is: *his* religion
	conflicts with evolution and also *his* religion says that
	thinking about alternatives is not all that important
	because God will provide a theory in due time.   Or mild
	variations on that.

   -	A person who thinks that current theories of evolution
	are inadequate - probability arguments, inadequate time,
	etc - and that in the absence pf a convincing theory of
	evolution, creation wins by default, even if you have
	no idea how it took place, or any positive evidence for
	creation.

   -	A person who thinks that all the evidence is actually
	evidence for creation - no matter how strongly it might
	*seem* to be evidence for evolution, simply because God
	can do anything he likes.

Any of those anywhere close?

jon.
From: livesey@solntze.esd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Creationist CRAPOLA!
Date: 27 Sep 92 02:35:36 GMT
Organization: sgi

In article <1992Sep26.173215.11917@st-andrews.ac.uk>, mrl@st-andrews.ac.uk (  Michael Ladomery) writes:
|> 
|> As has been asked before, what do the C. propose is the boundary between
|> what you call macro and microevolution, and how do you propose the
|> micro to be prevented into accumulating into macro over millions 
|> of years?

Now you and I can't possibly expect to understand every last
subtlety of Creationism.   We're too dumb, or too depraved
or too something.

But do you suppose we've stumbled over a *prediction* of
Creationism. namely that if micro can be prevented from
becoming macro, then some mechanism to achieve this must 
somewhere exist, and if all those expert Creationist 
scientists out there got on the job, they might actually
find it?

I've actually been trading email on this very topic with
one of the said experts, Antti Siivonen, and encouraging
him to get on the Nobel trail.  Perhaps he would care to
comment.

jon.
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Observations
From: sbishop@desire.wright.edu
Date: 1 Oct 92 06:21:19 EST
Organization: Wright State University 

In article <1992Sep30.114457.24720@city.cs>, lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun) writes:
> 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.
> 
> Pick up a copy of `Only Love Can Make A Miracle' by
> Mahesh Chavda, published by Kingsway. There are cases
> of people with _no eyeballs_ having their sight
> restored. There is also a picture of the signed death
> certificate of a boy who died and whom God restored to
> life.

Ah, yes, in some very small country on the other side of the world.  Sorry
but a signed death certificate is not proof of death.  That only means that
someone signed a death certificate.  Doesn't mean the child actually died.
Every so often there are cases of people spontaneously reviving on the
way to the morgue or even in the morgue.  Doctors make mistakes about whether
someone is really dead from time to time.  Considering the quality of care
in third world countries, I wouldn't be at all surprised if this is that type
of case.  Besides, what actual proof do you have of all this?  A book?
Sorry, but people have been writing books for years.  A good one that I
highly recommend you read is _Don't Call Me Brother_.  It was written by
a preacher who worked with Jim Bakker.  Interesting details of the Bakker
scam.

> 
>>While you are at it, explain how you distinguish between a
>>spontaneous recovery, and "God did it".       I've always 
>>wondered about that one.
> 
> There are no hard and fast rules - but if you nip off
> a sliver of skin from the end of your finger and it
> grows back, thats no great miracle. But if you have a
> withered arm and it instantaneously grows back...
> 
>>jon.
> 
> --
> Lionel Tun   (lionel@cs.city.ac.uk)
> Vision Group, City University, London, EC1V 0HB. 071-477 8000 x 3889

Once again, have you actually ever seen this happen?  I attended fundy churches
for over 20+ years.  Never saw ANYTHING that was unexplanable.

Sue
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Subject: Re: Real issues for Antti
Organization: University of Joensuu
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 18:09:55 GMT

corey@sdf.lonestar.org (Corey Carroll) writes:
>Uh, I hate to jump in again, since I don't know what reference
>Alan was talking about, but could the reason that Alan's
>reference is "false" be the fact that the Watchtower Society has
>an annoying habit of re-editing versions after the fact?  Read
>_Crisis of Conscience_...I think they like to re-edit things
>after prophecies don't come true to make it look like "Oh we
>didn't REALLY say that now, did we?"

	No, that is not true. I posted to Feuerbacher privately, because
	this doesn't belong to t.o. If you want to discuss more about 
	this, don't hesitate to email me. 
-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint

	No ITU, love, evolution.           Tuusniemi ! Siis imein suut !
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: markv@pixar.com (Mark T. VandeWettering)
Subject: Re: Let the Games Begin! (Ted Reposts his stuff)
Organization: Pixar -- Point Richmond, California
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 21:45:30 GMT


>In the case of astronomers, taken as a group, I have to agree with you;
>they ARE too stupid to realize that.  I shall post my good compendium 
>of astronomer jokes shortly.

In the case of Ted "Thicky" Holden, taken as an individual, is perhaps
the single densest piece of matter in the solar system.  I shall 
post my compendium of Ted Holden jokes (submissions accepted!) as soon 
as I can find a disk big enough to hold them all.

	Mark VandeWettering
From: mrl@st-andrews.ac.uk (  Michael Ladomery)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Genesis (was Deja vu all over again)
Date: 4 Oct 92 12:06:29 GMT
Organization: St. Andrews University, Scotland.

In article <91103@rphroy.ph.gmr.com> hamilton@gmr.com (William E. Hamilton CS50 CS/50) writes:
 deleted

>I didn't make an assertion. I merely asked a rhetorical
>question. Maybe I should rephrase it: Does it seem more logical that the
>Creator of the Universe, after making man and giving him intelligence
>so that he could investigate the universe God gave him, would then
>proceed to explain to him in detail the earth's history, which man himself
>can learn about from his own investigation,  or that He would explain
>to man something of Himself, which man can't learn on his own? Obviously

I would argue that He has done neither; ie He hasn't given us a detailed
history; He certainly hasn't given us a 'natural history' and He
certainly made a mess of explaining Himself given the dozens of
different religions around the world. 

deleted

>>Then you don't need a Bible.  You have already established the truth
>>before reading it.
>
>What led you to conclude this? Christians believe that the Scriptures
>are the Word of God, and that the Holy Spirit enables them to understand
>what God is saying on the Scriptures. According to 2 Tim 3:16 all
>Scripture is God-breathed and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for
>correction, for training in righteousness. And according to John 14:26, "the
>Holy Spirit ... will teach you all things...".  No Christian is claiming
>that he discerns God's will independently of the Bible. Christians are
>urged in II Tim 3:16 and elsewhere to study the Scriptures, and told in
>John 14:26 and elsewhere that the Holy Spirit will teach them all things.
>It would seem that the message is, "Study the scriptures and rely on the
>Holy Spirit for understanding". You don't get to first base without studying
>the Scriptures.

Er.. if you're a Hindu or a Taoist biologist, are you suggesting that
in that case you "don't get to first base?"

Is it not a contradiction, that earlier you suggest that the Bible is
essentially about man/woman's relationship with God, and later you
quote Charlie 99:222 or whatever, who tells us that the Holy Spirit
'will teach all things'?

Cheers mike
(PS no offence intended)
From: swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Questions for Evolutionists
Date: 5 Oct 92 19:53:55 GMT
Reply-To: swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <1992Oct4.162629@IASTATE.EDU> kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:
|
|  The hypothesis was entirely based on the observation that the Penteauch
|alternates between 4 distinct writing styles.  Even the most stedfast hebrew
|scholars agree there are at least 3.

This was certainly *my* understanding of the basis for it.

And after seeing what results from extracting the J text from the Torah,
I am inclined to put a lot of weight on this argument.  The J text by itself
reads *entirely* differently than the Torah as it now stands.
-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
From: kring@efes.physik.uni-kl.de (Thomas Kettenring)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Uneven felt gravity
Date: 5 Oct 92 23:35:10 GMT
Organization: FB Physik, Universitaet Kaiserslautern, Germany

In article <1510@esl.ESL.COM>, markwc@barney.esl.com (Mark Christiansen) writes:
>I'm still trying to understand this "felt effect" idea (because nobody
>has answer my question in previous posting).  Is the idea that certain
>parts of the Earth had less attraction than others at some time in the
>past or was the density of the whole Earth much lower?

I had expected Ted to send you his files...

It's like this:  Once upon a time, Saturn was a star, and Earth revolved around
it.  Their distance was so small that on the Earth side close to Saturn, which
Ted calls "North Pole" for an unknown reason, Saturn's gravity cancelled part
of Earth's gravity so that the "felt effect of gravity" was smaller there.
All this is necessary to explain the fact that dinosaurs didn't collapse under
their own load, which can be shown using simple math that only Ted understands.

This scenario also explains (with a bit of selecting data, dropping other
data, and choosing your parameters arbitrarily) some myths, like the Golden
Age or Noah's Flood.

The theory also requires that the force between Saturn and Earth was not
gravitational alone but mainly electromagnetic.  This is probably because it
is simple for a first-grade science student to show that with gravitation it
doesn't work, but electromagnetics is understood by not so many people, so
that's safer.

The theory also requires the postulate that astronomers are a bunch of lying
bastards.  Else it would be difficult to explain why they don't buy it.

The genius whose brain spawned this thing was Immanuel Velikovsky, a Swiss
psychiatrist.  Physicists who have read his books say that the history part
sounds reasonable, but the physics part is bullshit, whereas historians think
it's the other way around.

--
thomas kettenring, 2 dan, kaiserslautern, germany
Science is like democracy - it's not perfect, but it's the best thing available.
From: news@fedfil.UUCP (news)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Friesen on elastics and sauropod necks
Date: 6 Oct 92 04:28:50 GMT
Organization: HTE

In article <1186@tdat.teradata.COM>, swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen) writes:


*Oh by the way Ted, I have thoght of one very solid reason why such large
*animals have not re-evolved.  The plant ecology of the world has changed.
*When sauropods wheree the most common, and the largest, the dominant plants
*were 'confers', seed ferns and cycads, *no* flowering plants at all.
*
*
*Thus, it may well be that angiosperms (the scientific name for flowering
*plants) are not suited to supporting such lrge critters.

There's an easy way to test it out:  try living on pine cones for about
a month or two.  I'll stick to the apples and pears, myself...



-- 
Ted Holden
HTE

Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: salem@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Bruce Salem)
Subject: Re: Observations
Organization: Stanford Univ. Earth Sciences
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 22:17:41 GMT

	Dragon's teeth, at least for me, // :-)

In article <1992Sep29.133717.1602@nsisrv.gsfc.nasa.gov> jgacker@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker) writes:
>	The same way you distinguish between the spontaneous creation
>of the Universe (the "Big Bang") and "God did it".
>	You can't.  That's where faith comes in.

	Wrong! The Big Bang has results that can be tested for,
and possibly not found. In case you are still wet behind the ears,
there was an alternative theory, the Steady State Theory of Hoyle,
et. al., which has not found the same kind of emperical confirmation
as the Big Bang. So, it is not a matter of faith, nor do arguments
for and against make the issue moot, as there are tests. Seems to me
that between your obvious religious leanings and the rest of your
background, which I can guess at, that you don't have the slightest
inkling about what is science and what is not. I am not saying here,
that anyone has absolute proof for a Big Bang, but neither do you
have even as much demonstation for a Supernatural Creation, ONLY
your faith, which may well be founded on personal need ONLY.

>	Again, the fountain of Lourdes in France has specific 
>criteria for what can be considered a "miraculous healing".  I KNOW
>they exist, but don't know where to find them.  Whether or not the
>healing is truly "miraculous" no doubt depends on the perception of
>the individual.
>
>	Jim Acker
>	jgacker@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov

	Yeah, yeah, yeah! And what do you do at NASA, engineering, prehaps?
Hearing you talk, I can't suppose that you have done any "real" science.

Bruce Salem
From: cjhs@minster.york.ac.uk
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: "Hydrological sorting" (was: "Re: Creationist CRAPOLA!")
Date: 2 Oct 92 01:15:44 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of York, England
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

Chris Stassen (stassen@alc.com) wrote:
: Lionel Tun writes:
: [In response to an article of mine.]
: > But to piece together assorted layers from round the world and
: > assemble a supposed historical timescale is entirely another.
: 
: As has been pointed out to you before (with references), this is a lie.

Not only is it not a lie -- it is not even false.

Lionel claims that to observe the layers is an entirely different thing
from being able to figure out a history from them. This is correct, and
Lionel is a living example of the distinction.

He knows the layers are there, but he is not capable of reasonable
consideration of the implications, despite every attempt to
educate him.

Let us not be too free with the word lie; it hinders communication.
Although, to be fair, there does not seem to be much communication
to be hindered.

Felicitations -- Chris Ho-Stuart