HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Dr.Pepper@f241.n103.z1.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Logic and God (was: Young earth crea
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Aug 21 1992
Date: 30 Aug 92  19:51:00

 > From: lawson@acuson.com (Drew Lawson)
 > Message-ID: 1992Aug28.162143.15880@acuson.com

 > I got into this discussion trying to make the point that science
 > needn't be so hostile toward religion.  That was all.

Since science never has, and never will be hostile to religion, you have no
point to make.

+--------------------------+--------------------------------------+
| 10                    2  | Garden Grove Institute of Technology |
|        DR PEPPER         | Community Outreach Center            |
|                       4  |                                      |
+--------------------------+ Snail Addr: Unit #1, 7872 Trask      |
| Hussein: We made him, we |             Westminster, Ca  92683   |
| broke him, we'll build   | Modem:      714-894-7039             |
| him up again if we want  | Fidonet:    1:103/241                |
| to, we're the US.        | Candynet:   42:1001/1                |
|                          |                                      |
+--------------------------+--------------------------------------+

---
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Subject: Re: Linguistics and evolution
Organization: University of Joensuu
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 15:49:44 GMT

salem@appserv.Eng.Sun.COM (Bruce Salem[CONTRACTOR]) writes:

>asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:

>>	You ignore the fact that languages have developed to simpler forms 
>>	not more complicated as the so-called evolution "theory" claims. 

>	This sounds like an unsupported assertion. How does one define
>"simple" and "complex" as regards "forms" of life or language? Does
>any analysis of such forms support your assertion? This is murky stuff,
>nor does what I know about evolution support the conclusion. Is a
>form that is more "specialized" necessarily more complex? Does evolutionary
>change always involve increased complexity? I would say not always. This
>hinges on definition and elaboration of terms that can be realted to
>emperical information. You have bothered to discuss neither termininology
>nor information.

	OK. I will give you some. Finnish is a primitive and complicated 
	language, English is modern and developed. 

                        English                    Finnish
Infinitive:           2 forms                       4 forms
The number of cases:  2                            18
Vocabulary:           Determined                   Flexible


-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint

	No ITU, love, evolution.           Tuusniemi ! Siis imein suut !
From: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: White skin-how did it develope?
Date: 25 Aug 92 22:46:53 GMT
Organization: animal -- coelomate -- deuterostome

In article <1992Aug25.143650@IASTATE.EDU> btd@IASTATE.EDU (Benjamin T Dehner) writes:

[much Tun-spew deleted]

[then Ben's reply]
>	This is a really sad statement.  You are totally mis-applying the
>mechanism of natural selection to an entire society, and it doesn't work that
>way.  You are jumping from the evolutionist posisition 'in a natural
>environment, the strong are MORE LIKELY to survive' to an unwarranted value
>judgement of 'in human society, only the strong SHOULD survive', and
>attributing this leap of logic to evolutionists.

He also fails to understand that "survival of the fittest" is a
buzz phrase which is at best a severe distortion of evolutionary
theory. Fit is then confused with physically fit and we reach Tun's
concept of evolution.

Being bigger and faster is only favored if that somehow
translates into producing more offspring. It costs energy (that
could go towards producing offspring) to be big or fast, so
animals evolve to be just big/fast enough, then quit. If we needed
a stupid one-liner to summarize evolutionary theory "takeover by the
sexiest" would be a lot better than "survival of the fittest".

Of course, this is explicitly spelled out in the FAQ I mailed him
months ago, but has he taken the time to read it (or the brains
to comprehend it)? ... nah.

>	I'll leave this one to someone more versed in evolutionary biology.
>(Chris?)

Thanks, but I'll pass. Lionel has all the information it takes to
arrive at a decent grasp of evolutionary theory -- but he refuses
to consider it. He'd rather make innuendoes about its supposed
influence on morals and valiantly slay straw men of his own
creation than grow a spine and start addressing the actual theory
of evolution. This only goes to show the strength of evolutionary
theory. Ignore him; his pathetic little tantrums do more to
discredit him and his position than the megabytes of refutation 
that invariably follow his posts. 

>Benjamin T. Dehner    Dept. of Physics and Astronomy 

Chris Colby 	---	 email: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu	---
"'My boy,' he said, 'you are descended from a long line of determined,
resourceful, microscopic tadpoles--champions every one.'"
 	--Kurt Vonnegut from "Galapagos"

Xref: sparky talk.origins:10873 sci.skeptic:15934
From: hhm@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (herschel.h.mayo)
Newsgroups: talk.origins,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Shroud exposed at early date (Tim O'Neill)
Date: 4 Sep 92 20:58:41 GMT
Followup-To: sci.skeptic
Distribution: usa
Organization: Chicago Home for the Morally Challenged


> |> Heller gives the following results to show that the "blood" is
> |> really blood (his primary involvement in the project):
> |>     1. High iron in blood areas by X-ray fluorescence
> |>     2. Indicative reflection spectra

> |> All this is to blow away McCrone's contention that the red stuff is paint.
> |> They explain the presence of iron oxide as part of the retting process
> |> used to produce the cloth, and note that the water stains from dousing

> 
> -Heller found vermillion pigment, just as McCrone did.  McCrone
> found a lot more than Heller, because McCrone's technology was much 
> more sensative.

> "In summarizing Heller and Adler's report on their investigation of the
> "blood" stains on the cloth of Turin, we find many of their tests questionable,
> and we observe that tempera paint could produce similar results.  We
> 
> I would comment that Heller's findings, far from "blowing away"
> McCrone are fully consistent with McCrone's findings.  BOTH found
> evidence of tempera based paint.  IMHO, Heller may have misinterpreted
> his own data as showing something more than it actually does.
> 


Everybody seems to have missed one glaring possibility: Why the hell would the
forger of the shroud not just use real blood rather than going to all of the
trouble and expense of painting it? Ox, cow, chicken or any other readily 
available blood could be used to make a real stain that would dry to the 
correct color.  Painting it is both laborious, and requires mixing to simulate
the color of dried blood.

Blood was probably used to stain the shroud originally, and when it flaked
away in later years, it was touched up with paint. Nothing is proved either
way
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Subject: Re: Linguistics and evolution
Organization: University of Joensuu
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 16:07:03 GMT

mls@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (mike.siemon) writes:
>If you think "simplicity, accuracy and expressiveness" have anything
>much to do with the case, I'd be interested in knowing why.

	I think that a simple language can't be expressive. And if this is the 
	criteria, languages have changed into worse. It was said in my Finnish 
	lessons that you can't translate "epajarjestelmallistyttamattomyydes-  
	saankopahan" to English. That about expressivity. 
-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint

	No ITU, love, evolution.           Tuusniemi ! Siis imein suut !
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard)
Subject: RNC and evolution
Organization: The Turing Project, Charlottesville Virginia.
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 15:17:34 GMT

I'm still surprised that creationism wasn't in the Republican platform.
Or are they just saving that till 96?

-- 
>>Unix/C Contract worker available 5 years C/unix work experience<<  ______
Available for Telecommuting/Travel and contracts on the T Line       \    /
in the Boston MA area. Send me e-mail for a copy of my Resume.        \  /
       -- VWIS 508-793-9568 (2400 baud), Linux support BBS.--          \/
From: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Fwd: update on New Newsletter
Date: 2 Sep 92 20:06:07 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: caroll@ncsa.uiuc.edu (Carol Lepzelter)

In article <Btyu6n.BnB@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, caroll@ncsa (Carol Lepzelter) writes:
>It will consist of short news items concerning advances (or
>regresses) in science and technology, the kind of items that such
>publications as "Science" and "Nature" would not consider publishing,
>either because they are too controversial, or because they deal with
>some unpleasant truth.

The examples seem amazingly dull so far.

>We believe we can establish a network of informants who will 
>contribute, either anonymously or under a pseudonym, or under 
>their own names (which we would _prefer_) hot news items ranging over 
>the entire spectrum of today's culture, with special emphasis on 
>science and technology.

I can understand certain obnoxious satire getting published anonymously.

>			  Some typical news items might be: an 
>expose of neural networks as multivariate statistical analysis 
>under a new name;

Whooptie doo.  Few people have good intuitions regarding statistics.
If a rename helps people understand what they're doing, fine with me.

>		   a list of the increasingly baffling discoveries 
>that ill-match the Darwinian theory of evolution (as it is 
>understood today),

I regularly run into examples of non-Darwinian evolution in the regular
journals, most recently the suggestion the angiosperms have a heavy
amount of sideways gene jumping.  What's being suppressed?

>		    and statistical evidence proving that African
>witchcraft has been a more effective psychiatric cure than Freudian
>psychoanalysis.

Huh?  When was Freudian psychoanalysis ever considered good for anything
in the scientific community?

>it has been decided that such funding will be contingent upon our 
>being able to put together a credible mailing list for the first 
>few issues.

How about a credible list of exposes?  That's more to the point.

>Gian-Carlo Rota

G-C Rota is certainly respected within mathematics, but it seems like he
should apply "truth" to his own brochures, and just say he's publishing
the odd stuff that's only sporadically reported on, unlike the other
science rags that try (and fail) to give a balanced view of everything.
Let's see, perhaps he should publish the shocking ELVIS sequence report.
Oh, wait, SCIENCE scooped him on that one.  Never mind.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: keithd@well.sf.ca.us (Keith Doyle)
Subject: Re: The Philosophical problems of Creationism (Was: Try the Bible (Re: Calling Young-earth Creationists)
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Distribution: world,local
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 03:00:03 GMT



Phill Hallam-Baker writes:
>This is the point I was trying to make, in order to accept creationism you
>have to come up with a convincing explanation of why evolution as a model
>works so well. Since the only version of creationism that has predicitve
>power would be to postulate that the agreement with the evolution model is
>deliberate, predictive creationism falls into the deamon category.

Well said.  Fits right in to the arguments that a God powerful enough to
create the universe must have been omnicient enough to know what effects
it would have.  One cannot argue that God inadvertently created a world
where evolution only "seemed" to have occurred, as omnicience cannot do
anything inadvertently.  And this is why most creationists have backed
off the position that God may have created with the appearance of age,
as it distills down to a God who is either something less than completely
omnicient, or something less than completely truthful.

Keith

Newsgroups: talk.origins
From:  chorus@vntic.msk.su (ACADEMIC CHORUS BY S. STROKIN)
Subject: ALL'ATTENZIONE DEGLI UTENTI ITALIANI
Summary: ALL'ATTENZIONE DEGLI UTENTI ITALIANI
Reply-To: chorus@vntic.msk.su
Organization: AIST-VNTIC INFORMATION NETWORK
Date: Wed,  2 Sep 92 15:51:22 +0300 

             ALL' ATTENZIONE DEGLI UTENTI ITALIANI !

   Il Coro Accademico di Mo Sergio V. Strokin cerca collaborazione
e l'amicizia con i cori, orchestri, solisti italiani. Ed anche con
tutti amatori della musica classia, lirica, corale...

   Per la vostra richiesta posiamo spedirvi (via E-mail) il programma
del coro.

                                 S. Strokin -  direttore artistico
                                 B. Tarakanov - president
                                 A. Kadosov - direttore amministrativo
From: jgacker@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker)
Subject: Antti's word
Content-Type: text
Organization: Computer Science, Indiana University
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 92 10:50:37 EDT
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4dev PL73]
Content-Length: 288       


	"To make someone to do (something)"  One word, eight letters:

	"motivate"

	What can I do to motivate you to start thinking, Antti?

	Jim Acker
	jgacker@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov

	BTW, what did it mean in Finnish?  "humongouosamalgamofunrelatedwords"
could be claimed to be English, too.

Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: jgacker@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker)
Subject: Thanks, Joel
Content-Type: text
Organization: Computer Science, Indiana University
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 17:10:58 EDT
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4dev PL73]
Content-Length: 606       


	Like I said, thanks for the research, Joel.

	General question:  without catastrophic events such as
planetary-rocking collisions, what would the course of evolution be?
I.E. are collisions/mass extinctions required to "shake the pot"
resulting in more diversity?

	I would think that in the absence of such shake-ups, 
Punctuated Equilibrium would postulate endless stability (shake-ups
on the local level including climate change processes not as 
massive as a big collision event).  But my knowledge of Punc. Eq. is
mostly from this group.

	'til next time,

	Jim Acker
	jgacker@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov
From: rh@smds.com (Richard Harter)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Keeping time twice a day
Date: 2 Sep 92 03:59:10 GMT
Reply-To: rh@ishmael.UUCP (Richard Harter)
Organization: Software Maintenance & Development Systems, Inc.

In article <18KR027b20vh01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> jjh00@OUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Joel J. Hanes) writes:

>  rh@ishmael.UUCP (Richard Harter) writes:

>>But the whole sauropod proposition is an interesting one.  I suspect
>>old bronty didn't lie down unless she had to -- the legs could support
>>her weight but that big belly couldn't.

>Are you aware that many dinosaur species had a whole set of
>bones, "belly ribs", running down the abdomen between the
>sternum and the pubis?

If I'm not mistaken, the belly rib critters were nodosaurs and ankylsaurs
and the like -- low slung, broad bodied, and armored.  I don't think that
sauropods or theropods did.

I seem to recall that elephants don't lay down for very long -- an hour
at most if they can help it -- because of the problem of bearing weight
on the soft body parts.
-- 
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: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik (Hacker))
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!
Date: 23 Aug 92 01:33:44 GMT
Followup-To: talk.origins
Organization: Apple

In article <1992Aug17.162241.26511@city.cs>, lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel
Tun) wrote:
> 
> In article <zs9msg+.alc@netcom.com> stassen@alc.com writes:
> 
> >[..about dating trees by tree rings...]
> 
> Suppose you had a garden. One day you look out of the window and see
> a tree in the middle of if where previously there had been none. Now
> a friend comes to visit you for the first time and looks at the tree.
> He counts the rings and says its been there for 100 years. You say 
> its been there for 1 day. Which of you is correct?
> 
> Hint: It depends on your assumptions.
> Advice: Don't make too many assumptions about the origin of the
>         universe and of species.

Hah! Trees are trees, whether people see them or not. And tree
rings are tree rings, whether we want them to show that the
three is 1000 years old or not. I find it extremely stubborn
to try to counter-explain tree rings with a Godly intervention.

Or then we are back at the 'God is a joker' concept, something
that I don't think creationists want to talk much about.

Speak about *old* trees, take a 4 hour drive north from San
Francisco, and check out trees that are older than Christianity.

Cheers,
Kent

---
"Read my lips... No Willie Horton..."
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Subject: Re: macroevolution
Organization: University of Joensuu
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 10:57:22 GMT

skroger@zeus.calpoly.edu (Seth L. Kroger) writes:
>reason you were coming up with only a bunch of dumb**** one-liners whenever
>asked for an intelligent discussion of your views.
 
	I do one-liners to save your valuable time. You can ask me more. 

>refuted time and time again.  All of it comes from 1) blatent distortion of
>evolution, 2) misquoting and quoting out of context of scientists to make it
>appear they refute evolution when they don't, 3) making up their own natral
>laws or applying natural laws in way they shouldn't be applied to make
>evolution impossible, 4) making up their own evidence, and ignoring the
>evidence on the other side, and 5) just plain appealing to people's set
>religious dogma.

	Yes, this is true in most cases. Especially point five bothers me a
	lot, when people want to prove some young-earth nonsense or such. I 
	read an anti-evolution post in sci.sceptics not long ago and it was
	quite okay, except that 5. It somehow affects nastily to the reliabili-
	ty. If there is a dirt-spot in the (otherwise clean) tablecloth, it 
	can't be used. But aside these dirt-spots the literature is quite OK.

>I would suggest that you bring up some claims of your own explaining why
>evolution is wrong.  Or are you too afraid that they can't stand the light
>of day and wish to continue on in some fantasy world?

	I suppose you (all) know the famous Larus fuscus - Larus argentatus  
	-case ? In this it SEEMS to be speciation, but it's only micro-
	evolution. 

>But can you really show that your results are better than Chris'?

	No, I only say that Chris' results don't necessarily prove evolution and
	now I  refer to this L. argentatus -question. 

>Do you have any friggen idea how large the Internet is???  If they are here
>on the internet, care to give us their full names along with mail addresses?

	Menem is changing site now, so he is off for a while and I don't now
	his new address yet.   

>Antti, you have been asked on numerous occasions in the past month to
>explain some of your views about evolution.  You have responded with a load
>of drivel.  I'd suggest that if you really wish to continue this discussion,
>you get your act together and bring up some real points!  If not, stop
>wasting the bandwidth with your one-liners.  (the original content for most
>of your posts is down around the 5-10% region.)

	I can explain the L. argentatus-case if you haven't heard of it yet. 
	You could also first see what the others have written not to make 
	the same questions. 
-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint

	No ITU, love, evolution.           Tuusniemi ! Siis imein suut !
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: isaak@aurora.com (Mark Isaak)
Subject: Creationism Philosophy  (was: White skin--how)?
Reply-To: isaak@aurora.com (Mark Isaak)
Organization: The Aurora Group, Palo Alto, CA
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 92 20:57:27 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.102900.9620@city.cs>, lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun)
writes:
 
> Apartheid, racism, bullying etc are man-made evils. The
> rejection of God and man's decision not to obey God's
> will are the major contributors to this sorry state of
> the world. Where is `love your neighbour' in the
> evolutionary philosophy? 

Apartheid, racism, and bullying all have counterparts in the animal
world.  It's the concept of evil which is man-made.  But this has
little or nothing to do with evolution.  Evolution is a description, not
a philosophy. 

Creationism, on the other hand, IS a philosophy, and what do we find
there? 

We find creationists bearing false witness in calling their position a
science, when in fact the evidence supporting it is nil.

We find creationists denying the evidence of scientists, in effect
calling them liars.  Or, worse, they willfully ignore any evidence that
opposes their position, thus acting like God Himself were the liar.
Some go even further and claim that God means to deceive us. 

We find further false witness in Creationists' characterizations of
evolutionary scientists either as atheists or at least headed in that
direction.  They falsely claim, either outright or by innuendo, that
evolutionary theory (which has been around for about 100 years) is
responsible for evils which have been around since the dawn of mankind.

But most of all, we find beneath it all an incredible hubris, where the
Creationists believe not only that their spiritual and moral values are
so important that they should be applied to other people, but that the
very history of the universe can be determined from their values.

Where is "love your neighbor" in the creationist philosophy?
-- 
Mark Isaak           "Every generation thinks it has the answers, and every
isaak@aurora.com      generation is humbled by nature." - Philip Lubin
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: kring@efes.physik.uni-kl.de (Thomas Kettenring)
Subject: Re: Logic and God (was: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Organization: FB Physik, Universitaet Kaiserslautern, Germany
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 17:06:44 GMT

Joseph Duffy writes about original videotapes showing origins of life:

>If you follow the original thread you'll understand that I don't
>think either side has such direct evidence that they can produce. Because
>of this I don't believe that either side can draw an "inescapable conclusion".

Okay.  Can we agree on this formula:

The evolution side cannot draw an *inescapable* conclusion, but it can draw a
conclusion that is really extremely difficult to escape from without ignoring
vast amounts of data, or the real world as a whole.

The creation side cannot draw an inescapable conclusion too, and the only
conclusion it can draw is one that is very simple to escape from, for example by
not believing that the Bible is meant literally or not believing that it was
written by God.

-- 
thomas kettenring, 2 dan, kaiserslautern, germany
Science is like democracy - it's not perfect, but it's the best thing available.
Organization: Physics, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA