HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rowe@pender.ee.upenn.edu (Mickey Rowe)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: What makes a creationist?
Date: 10 Nov 92 00:52:59 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <1992Oct27.161558.18615@hsr.no> onar@hsr.no (Onar Aam) writes:

>    Males are often more interested in natural sciences than females. And
>naturally they are more eager to learn the secrets of nature.
>(females often prefer social sciences). Besides, the female brain is more 
>"averaged out" than the male brain. Hence there are more idiots among men than 
>among women, but also more geniouses. 

I gather that you meant that the variance in male intelligence is
larger than the variance in female intelligence.  At first I thought
you were talking about a property of the individual brains.  In any
case, I'd like to know what sort of evidence you might have to back up
this somewhat inflammatory claim.

>I think that most educated women are painfully
>aware of the narrow understanding of natural sciences among many of their
>co-sisters. I mean, is it a coincidence that so many women secretly adhere to
>astrology? I don't think so either.

Before you ask us if something is coincidental, perhaps you should
begin by establishing the fact of the co-occurrence.  I haven't
noticed woman gravitating towards pseudo-science any more than men.
Is Norway really such a different place?  

Furthermore, my graduate program (neuroscience) is split pretty evenly
between male and female students.  The faculty is nowhere near that,
but I suspect that in 25 years they will have caught up.  The
differences between men and women seem (to me) to be differences in
opportunity rather than natural ability or curiosity.

>Onar.

Mickey Rowe     (rowe@pender.ee.upenn.edu)
From: alex@cs.adelaide.edu.au (Alex M. Farkas)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: What is consciousness?
Date: 11 Nov 1992 06:26:57 GMT
Organization: Adelaide University, Computer Science Department.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: alex@cs.adelaide.edu.au
NNTP-Posting-Host: heruka.cs.adelaide.edu.au
Keywords: life, don't leave home without it.

In article <BxCvM3.47H@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>, adpeters@sunflower.bio.indiana.edu (Andy Peters) writes:
|> Hmmmm...  I have two requests for Kalki:
|> 
|> (1) Define "consciousness."
|> (2) Explain how any reasonable definition of "consciousness" can be applied
|> to plants, viruses, bacteria, protozoa, sponges, cnidarians...

I suggest that if part 1 is properly defined then part 2 is answered - the
reason for this is that (I believe) if you can define consciousness in an
objective way (eg. being able to state by definition that another HUMAN BEING
is conscious) then the same statement should apply to other "lifeforms".

What I am trying to say, is that it seems rather difficult to `prove' even the
consciousness of a human being other than one's self, so who are we to state
that any other lifeform is in fact conscious?

What do you think?

alex

-- 

+----------------+-----------------------------------+-------------------------+
| Alex M. Farkas | University of Adelaide, Australia | alex@cs.adelaide.edu.au |
+----------------+-----------------------------------+-------------------------+
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: Bales is a liar: evidence - one case
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 13:48:57 GMT

In article <7552@tekig7.PEN.TEK.COM> bobb@tekig1.PEN.TEK.COM (Robert W Bales) writes:
}In article <97056@netnews.upenn.edu> weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P
} Wiener) writes:
}
}>Do you still claim that your interest in having creationism taught
}>in schools is based solely on scientific motives, and has nothing
}>to do with your religious beliefs?  That is quite simply a lie.
}
}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)?

Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: adpeters@sunflower.bio.indiana.edu (Andy Peters)
Subject: Re: AWESOME computer program (Populus)
Organization: Program in Evolution, Ecology, and Behavior, Indiana University
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 01:05:31 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.125743.1085@city.cs> lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun) writes:
>In article <MAGUIRE.92Nov10155811@signal.clarkson.edu> maguire@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Bill Maguire) writes:

>A number of people have pointed out this sort of use 
>of `randomness' in the design of a program. But please note that  
>the program has been specially designed in this way. The use of
>randomness here is very specific and very tightly controlled. It
>is being used as part of the _design_ process.

Sorry, Lionel.  The program was changed randomly, and its performance
improved.  That's what you asked for.

>Lets say the chess program is 1M (approx 1 million bytes or
>8 million bits). You randomly change a few bits. Your claim is
>that you may by chance change a variable such as `number of
>moves ahead' or `a coefficient of some sort'. Do you really
>think that the program will play better chess? I am talking
>about a _well designed_ chess program which has _already_
>been finely tuned. In evospeak you might say an organism that
>has become well adapted to its environment.

But you're setting up a strawman here, Lie-onel, for two reasons:

(1) If an organism is well-adapted to its environment, it is, by
definition, unlikely to be "improved" by mutation, because there's
little improvement to be done at all.  To set up a realistic
situation, you have to see what happens if you either change the
organism's environment or start out with a less-well-adapted organism.

(2) You're only allowing us to mutate one individual.  In real life
(i.e. evolution), mutations occur in entire populations of
individuals; each mutation either increases or decreases the
individual's chance of passing it on to the next generation.  You've
only given us one individual, and one generation.  Standard
creationist strawman.

>1. The chances of your random bit change causing the program to
>   crash is proportional to the size of the change.

True.

>2. The chances of your random bit change having a significant
>   effect of the performance of the program is proportional
>   to the size of the change.

False.  Even mutations with small effects on the fitness of an
organism will increase in the population.  Then, in future
generations, when another small, beneficial mutation occurs in an
individual, that individual is even more fit, etc...

The point is, that you're using a loaded word:  "significant."  _Any_
beneficial change _will_ be significant.

>So, your program must continue working _and_ it must make a
>significant change _and_ the change must be beneficial.

As I've said:  wrong.

>Lionel Tun   (lionel@cs.city.ac.uk)

-- 
* 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: salem@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Bruce Salem)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Bales is a liar: evidence - one case
Date: 13 Nov 92 04:05:39 GMT
Organization: Stanford Univ. Earth Sciences
NNTP-Posting-Host: pangea.stanford.edu

In article <1992Nov12.022821.1568@athena.cs.uga.edu> keck@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Keck) writes:
>In article <7552@tekig7.PEN.TEK.COM> bobb@tekig1.PEN.TEK.COM (Robert W Bales) writes:

>Let me state for the record that I am not a Bales-Basher (tm).  Bob, you've
>made some good points, and you're obviously an intelligent man.  BUT, this 
>statement in your post:

	I have been a Bales basher in the past. Lately I have been ignoring
him because I don't want to wade through long posts in which he says
nothing new. His basic position has not changed in four years and it is
not likely to in four more. What you will grow to tire of is the kind
of unsupported assertions such as what you quoted, followed by technical
sounding arguments that have no justified basis, no aim in criticism, no
appeal to philosophy. Bob makes un entirely negative attack on evolution
for which he is vague about the creation alternative and about which he
is reluctant to argue because of his own arbritrary distinction between
science and religion, which he does not justify.

>>The fact that there is objective,
>>observed evidence to sugest that life came through a process of creation
	[...]
>>justifies including the possibility in a cirriculum in the interests of
>>accuracy. 

>_really_ makes me have to ask- what?  Please tell me.  I've never
>seen any.  Please don't get sidetracked on reasons why the earth is 
>young, or quote the Bible, or anything of that sort.

	Bob will assert that his criticism of evolution is scientific,
but at times in the past he has slipped in religious beliefs. When
challenged about being biased by these beliefs he will accuse his
oppostion of first mentioning religion and them make the unsupported
assertion that he is doing science. Bob is an EE who has no training
as far as I can tell in life and geological sciences and who may be
a member of a fundementalist church that teaches faith healing, see
posts by him in this group in October and November 1988 on this
connection. I think he is a Seventh Day Adventist, but he will not
admit to any such affiliation.

>What objective, observed evidence is there that suggests life came 
>through a process of creation?

	I do not think that Bob has any such evidence. He has a bunch
of negative arguments against an old earth and evoluion. What Bob
refuses to discuss is the possibility that what is a matter of
record in this group is that he is biased or deluded or both in
his opinions and hasn't the self-cricical ability to justify his
beliefs on broad grounds, that is, to give his conclusions a philosophy.
All we have gotten, or are likely to get, is a debate strategy, but
not someone who is capable to self-examination and revision of his
position. After four years of this, Bob is gotten to be quite boring,
and as he refuses to post short replies, he can be ignored. That is
the final judge of Bob's contribution.

Bruce Salem
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: maguire@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Bill Maguire)
Subject: Re: Would you believe anyway ???
Organization: Clarkson University, Potsdam NY
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 18:09:40 GMT

In article <BxJz2K.zE@brunel.ac.uk> bm90ash@brunel.ac.uk (Adrian S Harvey) writes:
>p.s. Science cannot explain some of the biggest things in life  --  LOVE,

Wrong!  We can explain love the same way we explain why fish swim in
schools, dogs live in packs, lions live in prides, and social insects
live in their wonderful societies.  Why don't you go read about what
your slamming before you slam it.


Most of the people here seem to follow the rule "Know thy enemy."

We know you.  Do you really believe that you know us?

>Jesus said that "God is love "

Then God is nothing more than a survival mechanism.

-Bill
From: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Date: Sat, 07 Nov 92 04:04:55 EST
Reply-To: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Organization: Kalki's Infoline BBS, Aiken, SC, USA

watson@sce.carleton.ca (Stephen Watson) writes:

> In article <PJHRTB1w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
> >  The probability of evolution of higher life forms by known physical
> >processes during a 4.5 billion year period is bounded by an UPPER limit
> >of 10e-150000.
> [big snip]
> >  These statements are from Mechanistic and Nonmechanistic Science, by
> >Dr. Richard Thompson. His arguments are based on information theory
> >and molecular biology. The proof is straightforward.
>                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> So post it.

Read the book.

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)            |
       -------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: adpeters@sunflower.bio.indiana.edu (Andy Peters)
Subject: Re: noah's ark
Organization: Program in Evolution, Ecology, and Behavior, Indiana University
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 05:05:54 GMT

In article <1385@tdat.teradata.COM> swf@tools3teradata.com (Stan Friesen) writes:
>In article <Bx44uM.3oE@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>, adpeters@sunflower.bio.indiana.edu (Andy Peters) writes:
>|> In article <11969@risky.Convergent.COM> bkorb@convergent.com writes:
>|> >|> |> 	according to Whitcomb and Morris, ...
>|> >|> 
>|> >|> 	That is a bizarre assertion.  Who are they and why do you
>|> >|> 	assume that creationists should defend them?
>|> 
>|> Whitcomb & Morris are high-ups in the Institute for Creation Research.
>|> For the most part, creationists _do_ defend them.
>
>To say the least.  I would almost say that Creationists *worship* Morris.
>[At least they seem to treat his word as gospel].

Funny you should use those phrases.  When I first was writing the above,
I was trying to decide between the phrase: "...creationists _worship_
them" and "...creationists treat what they say as _gospel_."

In the interest of keeping my mild-mannered reputation, though, I
toned down my wording :-). 

>-- 
>sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
>  or
>Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com

-- 
* Andy Peters                     * "Slugs are small and portable    *From
* Program in Evolution,           * Just stuff 'em up your nose      *"Slugs,"
*      Ecology, and Behavior      * They'll fit beneath your armpits *by David
* Indiana University, Bloomington * Or right between your toes"      *Greenberg
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: TMakinen
Subject: Re: Great-etc-grandparents
Organization: <none>
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 92 11:13:52 GMT

In article <4236@novavax.UUCP> vaccaro@novavax.UUCP (N. Trafford Vaccaro)
writes:
>Hi, OK, what's wrong with this: you have 2 parents, 4 grandparents,
>8 great-grandparents, 16 great-great-grandparents, and so on,
>and I figured that if you go back to 20-times-great grandparents
>you end up with 1,048,576 people that were living at the time
>that were related to you. Of course this takes into account
>that no one married their uncles, etc. If you go back 1000
>generations, the number of people is mind boggling. 
>
>Where is the flaw? Can you imagine that x number of years from
>now everyone on this planet will have one common descendent known
>as our great-etc-grandson/daughter?

Isn't it trivial! Suppose we have this couple X (a woman) and Y (a man).
They give birth to two kids, x1 and y1. x1 and y1 give birth to you (z). Now
you have two parents and four grandparents, of which two and two are the same.
So two actual grandparents. In real life it generally takes somewhat more
rounds than just one to get married with a close relative.

Teemu
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: What is consciousness?
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 19:25:19 GMT

In article <LLPyTB1w165w@kalki33>, kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
> kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:
> 
> >   Considering the time stamp on this message, is it safe to say you are not
> > going to post, or give reference to, the proof that the probability of
evolut
> > into "higher" life forms is 10e15000?
> > 
> >   how suprising.
> 
> Read the book. We are very busy and will begin posting as soon as
> possible. Or are you in a big hurry?

  Since you (pl) have responded to posts that came significantly after my
previous comments, it seems silly to reiterate them.  However, on the off chance
that you missed them and all responses to them:

  I cannot read the book.  I cannot find the book.  It is not available through
interlibrary loan through my school (and the science section of the library here
is not small).  The publisher was given by someone else, but I can't even find
them.

  Of all the people who have tried locating this book, only one person has
located a single copy in a library that allows inter-library loan with their
school.  This is neither a common, nor popular book.  It is relatively unknown,
and almost nobody has any access to it in any way.

  I somehow feel like I'm in the dead parrot sketch.

 |  __L__
-|-  ___  Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub
 |  | o | kv07@iastate.edu
 |/ `---' Iowa State University
/|   ___  Math Department
 |  |___| 400 Carver Hall
 |  |___| Ames, IA  50011
 J  _____
From: cjhs@minster.york.ac.uk
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: AWESOME computer program (Populus)
Date: 9 Nov 92 22:43:57 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of York, England

Lionel Tun (lionel@cs.city.ac.uk) wrote:
: In article <ksand-051192183202@wintermute.apple.com> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik ) writes:
: >Lionel, why don't we have any computer programs that show that
: >evolution is impossible? 
: 
: Because as usual, you would choose not to believe.
: 
: Example: would you like to take a ride in an Airbus
: whose computer program was modified randomly? Why
: not? After all, the theory of evolution states that
: this is how improvements are generated.

If the airbus had been the end result of several thousand million
years of selection, then yes, certainly. Much rather that than the
current model.

Cheers -- Chris Ho-Stuart
From: rh@smds.com (Richard Harter)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Ted cleans up his act
Date: 10 Nov 92 20:45:48 GMT
Reply-To: rh@ishmael.UUCP (Richard Harter)
Organization: Software Maintenance & Development Systems, Inc.

In article <105@fedfil.UUCP> news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
>In article <1992Nov7.120535.28586@smds.com>, rh@smds.com (Richard Harter) writes:
>> In article <104@fedfil.UUCP> news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:

>> Scatological content: 0

>> Congratulations, Ted, keep up the good work.

>You're deriding me because my recent articles haven't included enough insult,
>invective, flamage, mud-slinging...  i.e. because they are not in keeping
>with the high standards of t.o, correct? 

Incorrect.  You have displayed a capacity for insult, invective, flamage,
and mud-slinging that places you among the very elite of talk.origins.  
-- 
Richard Harter: SMDS Inc.  Net address: rh@smds.com Phone: 508-369-7398 
US Mail: SMDS Inc., PO Box 555, Concord MA 01742.    Fax: 508-369-8272
In the fields of Hell where the grass grows high
Are the graves of dreams allowed to die.
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: What is consciousness?
Date: 11 Nov 92 21:18:16 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com


In article <BeJ1TB1w165w@kalki33>, kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
> 
> Well, consciousness is a real phenomenon, is it not? We know we are
> conscious, or self-aware. So consciousness exists, it is something. Now,
> the program of science is to identify and quantify all phenomena and all
> relations between phenomena. Right? So consciousness is a phenomenon. So
> science should identify, quantify it and delineate all the relations
> between consciousness and other phenomena.

Sure, but dealing with the consciousness of an organism
that you are *not* need not be the same as dealing with the
consciousness of the organism that you *are*.

You may be able to experience your own consciousness
directly, but you can only deal with the consciousness of
other organisms indirectly - at least, so far.

If you want to do this quantification you are talking
about, you need some measurable quantity that you are
willing to accept as evidence of this-much consciousness.
You can't just say "I am conscious, therefore so is that
Daisy over there".

So tell us what Daisy-quantity you accept as evidence of
consciousness.  Don't just insist that we must be able to
quanitify anything that exists, and therefore you don't
have to bother to show its existence.

> Or, if it is not quantifiable, or not identifiable, then
> science should say why not; and in doing so, science will
> have to define it.

In the imortal words of more than one creationist, "see above".

jon.
From: robd@cherry09.cray.com (Robert Derrick)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Lionel Tun, idiot or moron?
Date: 10 Nov 92 22:49:43 GMT
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

Daniel A Ashlock (danwell@IASTATE.EDU) wrote:
: 
: Enjoy the crow, you idiot.

According to Eco's Classification, there are four possibilities:

	Cretin, fool, moron, or lunatic.

In this instance, I believe that Idiot maps to Cretin.

Briefly, a Cretin is a person devoid of all intellect.  They are
	automatons of society.  They believe that Pro-Wrestling is real.
	I don't believe there are any Cretins on T.O.  At least not
	enough to be noticed.

A fool is someone who is always wrong, and never ever approaches
	making sense.  Every word is an obvious gaff.
	"They embarrass everyone but provide material for conversation."

A moron is the most complicated, and the most common.  Morons are not
	always wrong, but when they are right, they probably got there
	for the wrong reasons.  The higher moron more often says the
	wrong thing for the right reasons.  Most the the members of
	T.O. are this kind of moron, to one degree or other.  Except
	me and thee, of course.  "Or rather -- I wouldn't want to 
	offend -- save thee."  The lower type of moron usually says
	the wrong thing for what he and his peers fervently believe
	is the right reason, but of course, is wrong.  It is the 
	high level of moronic thinking that makes the lower type
	of moron so mistrustful of science.  I don't know that I
	can completely blame them.

The lunatic is a moron without any internel logic.  Everything proves
	everything, for a lunatic.  And everything a lunatic finds only
	confirms his lunacy.  A moron can and often does call his
	convictions into doubt.  A lunatic never doubts.

Therefore, correct me if I am wrong, of the evolutionists, we are all
	morons, to one degree or another.  Mostly higher level tho'.
	
Of the creationists, theistic anti-evolutionists, krishnites and
ufologists, most are low morons, with notable exceptions:

	Ted Holden is a lunatic.  Of this there is no doubt.

	and Lionel is of course, simply, a fool.

--

rob derrick - moron			robd@cherry.cray.com


------
Lionel, you are of course invited to refute the preceeding.  It will
provide endless entertainment.
Newsgroups: talk.origins