HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Bales Gives Us Evidence (yeah, right)
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Nov  5 1992
Date: 16 Nov 92  09:30:00

Who: bobb@tekig1.PEN.TEK.COM (Robert W Bales) 
 
RB> The fact [sic] that there is objective, observed evidence to
RB> sugest that life came through a process of creation [...]
 
In several articles over the years you have asserted that there is
evidence for Creationism. Yet in this time you have not produced
this evidence--- you have only criticized evolutionary theory.
Last week you again asserted that there is evidence for Creationism.
 
Please post the details of this evidence.
 
In the same article last week you said that there is an occult side
("metaphysical") to Creationism, but we [sic] should only examine
the physical evidence, and not criticize the Creationists for their
occult prattle.
 
If you have evidence for Creationism, you must therefore have evidence
for a Creator. Therefore, how can you divorce Creationism from its
occult side?
 
And exactly what IS the theory of Creationism? How can Creationism be
taught in science class, given equal time, without a theory?
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Ted cleans up his act - NOT
Date: 17 Nov 92 15:32:05 GMT
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA

In article <107@fedfil.UUCP> news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
}In article <1992Nov10.231927.3971@athena.cs.uga.edu>, keck@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Keck) writes:
}> [Ted's list of shame deleted]
} 
}> I think this should serve as a warning to anyone who has direct
}> personal contact with Ted- he seems to be quite obsessive in
}> keeping track of things that offend him/Bales.  I read a
}> manager's "Danger Signs in Employees" pamphlet once, and
}> keeping a list of wrongs was a biggie.  I know those things
}> weren't directed at you, Ted, but don't you think that's a bit 
}> compulsive?  Obsessive?  Strange? 
}
}If I were to keep a list of the flammage that goes across t.o for even two
}weeks, it would be a longer list than the little one which Mr. D'Ippollito
}compiled and which I saved off and occasionally repost (to remind the t.o
}regular crew of what _____s they are).  

Out of curiosity, if you want to pretend honesty for a change, wouldn't
you have to admit that YOU are a t.o. regular?  Why aren't YOU represented
in your list (aside from space constraints)?
From: bobb@tekig1.PEN.TEK.COM (Robert W Bales)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: I reinterate my blender request
Date: 18 Nov 92 02:23:52 GMT


Chris Colby writes, regarding confusion between the program Populus and the
computer game Populous:

>>> Gordon Davisson
> Lionel Tun

>>>You're confusing Populus (the evolution simulator Chris described) with
>>>Populous (a computer game in which one plays God).

>>Hhhmm. I was coming to that belated conclusion myself.

>Gee, whatever tipped you off? Was is me explicitly stating that there
>was a game of the same name or was it Mr. Davisson explicitly stating
>that there was a game of the same name? You know Lionel, had you read
>the remainder of the original post, it might have dawned on you that none of
>what I described even remotely resembles the game

I remember reading once of a study in which people were asked to identify
objects as pictures of them were slowly brough into focus.  Those who made an
incorrect identification early did not get the object correct until later
(with the object more in focus) than those who didn't.  Similarly, isn't it
possible that a description that conflicted with that of the game might not
have been enough to dislodge the wrong identific.  Could it be that Lionel
is not familiar enough with the details of the game that the description
sounded wrong?  Could it be some other possibilty which would allow an
honest person to be honestly confused?

>Thank you for once again demonstrating how entirely morally and
>intellectually bankrupt you creationists are.

"I'm sorry sir, but we're going to deny you a security clearance"

"Why?

"Our information is that you are morally bankrupt."

"WHAT??!"

"Yes.  It seems that back in 1992, you confused the names of two computer
programs."

It seems on the net  that creationists are not able to be confused, make a
mistake, see things differently, or draw different conclusions from the
evidence.  Stupid and unlearned though we are, it seems that we are held to
be immune from such common failings.  Since we obviously see immediately the
absolute truth of what is told us in this group, if we offer a differing
opinion, it *must* be due to our hidden adgendas, bigotry, lying natures, and
moral and intellecual bankruptcy. :-) :-) :-)

>It must be a neverending source of joy to meander through your little fantasy
>world where supernatural beings are mixed up in the affairs of humans

Would Chris present evidence that supernatural involvement occurs only in a
fantasy world?  It could be that the world without supernatural involvement is
the fantsy world.

   Bob Bales
   Tektronix, Inc.

I help Tektronix make their instruments. They don't help me make my opinions.
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: adpeters@sunflower.bio.indiana.edu (Andy Peters)
Subject: Re: Ted makes some sense!!!!!
Organization: Program in Evolution, Ecology, and Behavior, Indiana University
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 03:00:32 GMT

In article <111@fedfil.UUCP> news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:

>For reasons too numerous to mention, natural selection and the other
>various mechanisms which are commonly given out as driving engines for
>evolution just don't cut it, and teaching a theory with obvious holes in
>it is difficult for anybody.  Natural selection is what is known (outside
>the realm of evolution studies) as a tautology:  the fittest survive, and
>those who survive do so because they are most "fit" (the survivers are the
>fit).

Let's start out by assuming that Ted's at least partially right, and
that "Survival of the Fittest" is a tautology.  Fortunately for us
yuppie scientists, "survival of the fittest" != natural selection.
Natural selection is best described as a syllogism.  It has two
premises:

  IF there is heritable variation for a trait

  AND some expressions of a trait confer a greater chance of
      reproduction than others

and a conclusion:
  THEN changes in the genetic constitution of a population will occur.

Being a syllogism, then, NS is testable.  Merely test the premises.
Now I ask you:

Do you see heritable variation for traits in nature?
  (If you answer no, then you'd better back yourself up)

Do some expressions of these traits confer greater chances of
reproduction than others?
  (Ditto the "back yourself up" demand from above.)

Another way of stating the problem with the "tautology" argument is
that it assumes that fitness is defined as survival.  Firstly (and
somewhat trivially), fitness is more accurately defined as
reproductive success.  Secondly (and more importantly), this only
leads to circularity if there is no way to predict fitness.  Since,
however, fitness can be predicted (at least in theory) as a
probablistic event even before the end of the lifetime of an
individual, circularity is avoided - fitness is no longer defined
merely as "those which survive."

BTW, Ted, you've claimed that the increase in species diversity after
the flood is due to increased mutation rates as a result of high
levels of radiation.  However, mutation rate increases of the
magnitude you require would swamp the genome with highly deleterious
mutations, which would completely outweigh any advantages gained from
beneficial mutations.  This would lead to mass death, genetic
bottlenecks, and _decreases_ rather than increases of genetic
diversity within species (not to mention extinctions of entire
species).  In other words, it would lead to a decrease rather than an
increase in diversity.  How do you account for this problem? 

>Ted Holden
>HTE

--Andy "Breaking his solemn oath to ignore Ted" Peters

-- 
* Andy Peters                     * I borrowed Dad's jack.  I'll *
* Program in Evolution,           *   return it and his rivet    * (<-Don't
*      Ecology, and Behavior      *        gun tomorrow          *     ask)
* Indiana University, Bloomington *            -Bob              *
From: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 92 02:55:05 EST
Reply-To: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Organization: Kalki's Infoline BBS, Aiken, SC, USA

TMakinen writes:

> In article <4q58TB10w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
> >Right, evidence. Then show us a species changing into another species.
> >Show us amoebas being formed from molecules. Go ahead, show us the
> >evidence!
> 
> Shut up and read the FAQs. There are more evidence than you (pl.) would prefe

We'll read the FAQ if you read the book!

Sincerely,
Kalki "the lawyers present their cases, but the judge decides" 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: jani.patokallio%acc1bbs@ssr.com (Jani Patokallio) 
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Creation vs. evolutio
Date: 16 Nov 92 18:54:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Advanced Computer Concepts BBS, New Rochelle, NY 914-654-1981
Reply-To: jani.patokallio%acc1bbs@ssr.com (Jani Patokallio) 

In article <1992Nov15.123852.26913#nmsu.edu> sdoe@nmsu.edu (Stephen Doe)
writes:
-> In article <n0e24t@ofa123.fidonet.org> Richard.Rearden.#.914/901@f8.n10.z1.fido
-> et.org writes:
->
-> >a sign of the times'.  Here is whatEvolution truly is.  All Evolution is, is
-> >man's attempt to prove there is no God.
-> 
-> No, evolution seeks to provide an explanation for the incredible
-> diversity of life on this planet, given one or a few progenitor
-> species.  Doesn't actually mention God one way or the other.
-> Scientific theories usually don't, you see.  Oh did I mention I know
-> Christians who believe evolution is correct?  But there not *real*
-> ones, are they?

This has been discussed before.  Evolution and belief in God are not mutually
exclusive, unless you interpret the Bible extremely literally.  And even
then you might get away with believing in both, since the theory of
evolution itself doesn't say anything about (a)biogenesis.

--
Jani Patokallio                  |  "Ignorance is the soil in which belief
acc1bbs!jani.patokallio@ssr.com  |   in miracles grows."  -R. G. Ingersoll

---
 . AME 1.07 .
From: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Would you believe anyway ???
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 92 05:07:28 EST
Reply-To: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Organization: Kalki's Infoline BBS, Aiken, SC, USA

amorgan@csd-d-4.Stanford.EDU (Crunchy Frog) writes:

> >It is not possible that your quest was both sincere and unsuccessful.
> 
> I love this.  This is like the witch doctor (or Christian Scientist)
> saying "Have faith and you will be healed".  If you aren't healed you
> just didn't have enough faith.  Foolish you.  This is like someone
> saying that all Christians are moral and when we offer evidence to
> the contrary (several Popes, the inquisition, etc) they say "Well,
> those aren't *true* Christians".  Proof by rotating definition.  How
> exciting.

Yes, we can see how unexcited you are about it. And we can see how much
expertise you have in spiritual matters.

Sincerely,
Kalki "Juggernaut of the unbelievers" 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: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 92 05:38:02 EST
Reply-To: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Organization: Kalki's Infoline BBS, Aiken, SC, USA

skroger@zeus.calpoly.edu (Seth L. Kroger) writes:

> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
> >TMakinen writes:
> >> The theory contains not much information. The solutions contain huge or
> >> infinite amount of information. Meditate the quantum field theory to enlig
> >> yourself about the difference between the theory and the solutions.
> >
> >Yes, the solutions have high information content, and this is because
> >the initial conditions or the boundary conditions have high information
> >content.
> 
> Then what's the information content of a Mandelbrot set?

Infinite because the Turing machine needed to generate it will never
stop. But actual Mandelbrot sets do not exist in the physical world. An
approximation to the Mandelbrot set, such as those which run on personal
computers, will have a finite information content equal to the number of
bits in the program used to generate it.

Anything that is recursively defined over an infinite domain will have
infinite information content. (Counterexamples??)

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: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 92 04:24:12 EST
Reply-To: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Organization: Kalki's Infoline BBS, Aiken, SC, USA

igb@fulcrum.co.uk (Ian G Batten) writes:

> In article <JNi2TB2w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
> > The book demonstrates that by adopting the hypotheses of the theory
> > of molecular evolution, it must follow from these hypotheses that there
> > is an extremely tiny --virtually infinitesimal-- probability that a
> > living cell could have arisen by random molecular combination under
> > natural selection, even given a period of time much longer than the
> > estimated age of the earth.
> 
> So what?  If I take a pack of cards (let's make it a Tarot deck, so the
> numbers are larger!) and shuffle it, the chances of that sequence
> occurring are 1 in 78!  Now thanks to the ever-wonderful CMU Common
> Lisp, I can evaluate that:
> 
> 11324281178206297831457521158732046228731749579488251990048962825668835325234
> 
> Roughly 1 in 10 to the 115.  Now by most people's measurement, that's a
> rather small possibility.  But I only had to do it once to achieve that
> result!

Yes. So you agree with us that it takes an intelligent being to create
the conditions under which a particular configuration of matter
--distinct from other configurations-- can arise. This must be true,
since you shuffled the deck, and we are supposing that you are an
intelligent being.

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

Again, then, you agree with us that life comes from life, since, as you
say, it was your parents who produced you.

Sincerely,
Kalki "Show me a program without a programmer" 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)            |
       -------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: TMakinen
Subject: Re: What is consciousness?
Organization: <none>
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 92 10:26:56 GMT

>Kalki Dasa writes:
>According to the Vedas, the soul is placed into a particular sperm
>before the sperm unites with the egg. The placing is done by higher
>authorities (it's their job).

Isn't that stupid? There are zillions of little wigglers around and just one
egg.
If I had to guess the two winners I would certainly say that the egg is one of
them. Wont bother for the other one. These authorities must be real cretins.
Is this only because men have written this "theory" of fertilization?

What about all the other little guys over there. After all, they are alive and
therefore conscious, as you (pl) say. Aren't they disappointed as hell when
they are flushed down the drain?

not to be taken too seriously

Teemu

Don't forget to chant:  alavilla mailla hallanvaara
                        alavilla mailla hallanvaara
                        mailla   mailla hallanvaara
                        mailla   mailla hallanvaara

   (It's a weather forecast in finnish predicting cold nights at lowlands)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 00:04:14 GMT

In article <T048TB9w165w@kalki33>, kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
>johnsd2@vccnw01.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel Norman Johnson) writes:
>>>>   Please be real.  To model even the simplest organic reactions mathematic
>>>> is intractable.  (I assume p107 of the book you referred to earlier)
>>>Well then the proposal of molecular evolution that life arose from
>>>reactions between simple organic molecules cannot be demonstrated, can
>>>it? And if it cannot be demonstrated, then all claims that it actually
>>>occurred are premature, aren't they? And if one believes it occurred,
>>>then one does so on faith alone, right?
>> 
>> This has nothing to do with evolution. That's abiogenesis. Evolution
>> talks about live developing from other life, not "simple organic molecules"
> 
> Oh? Then what does the following statement by Watson mean?
> 
> "We see not only that the laws of chemistry are sufficient for
> understanding protein structure, but also that they are consistent with
> all known hereditary phenomena."
> 
> "Complete certainty now exists among essentially all biochemists that
> the other characteristics of living organisms (for example,... the
> hearing and memory processes) will all be completely understood in terms
> of the coordinative interactions of small and large molecules."
> 
> From The Molecular Biology of the Gene (pg. 67)

  Please read my quote again.  I said "intractable" not "impossible".  If you
think you are up to working out the math, be my guest.  See you in a few years
(if not decades).

>> It does not bode will for you disproof of evolution that you do not know
>> what evolution is, Kalki. Cris Colby (FAQmaster Extraordinare) recently
>> posted some FAQs you should probably read, to prevent this sort of faux-pas.
> 
>Yeah, yeah, we all know you pseudo-scientists are terrified of losing
>your grants.

  Oooh.  Were are so impressed with your clever reparte that we are all swarming
to join your side.

  Insults are not considered valid responses unless they contain a proper
response within them.  2 pts for Norman.

 |  __L__
-|-  ___  Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub
 |  | o | kv07@iastate.edu
 |/ `---' Iowa State University
/|   ___  Math Department
 |  |___| 400 Carver Hall
 |  |___| Ames, IA  50011
 J  _____
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: huston@access.digex.com (Herb Huston)
Subject: Re: design in living organisms
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 19:32:45 GMT

In article <1992Nov22.012646.24275@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> tlode@nyx.cs.du.edu (trygve lode) writes:
>In article <By308G.IH8@access.digex.com> huston@access.digex.com (Herb Huston) writes:
>>                      Even the adult human skull is too thin to provide
>>adequate protection to the gigantic brain and the absence of brow ridges
>>leaves the eyes poorly protected.
>>
>>When can we expect issuance of the recall notice?
>
>Hey, speak for yourself--some of us do have brow ridges and longitudnal 
>skull ridges to increase the strength of the skull.  ('Twas great fun--
>I was having my head fondled by a very attractive paleoanthropologist at
>my halloween party; at one point she even exclaimed, "look!  Occipital
>Bunning!")

Well, then it would seem that a FAQ file on atavisms should include a
digitized photo of the palm of my right hand and an X-ray of your skull
along with the usual information on hen's teeth and horse's toes.

-- Herb Huston
-- huston@access.digex.com