HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jgacker@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Reprise for Kalki
Date: 18 Nov 92 19:11:43 GMT
Organization: Computer Science, Indiana University
Content-Type: text
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4beta PL16]
Content-Length: 1909

Forwarded message:
From jgacker  Mon Aug 31 14:16:39 1992
From: jgacker (James G. Acker)
Message-Id: <9208311816.AA07789@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov>
Subject: To Joseph Duffy -- I've got your videotape!
To: talk.origins@news.cs.indiana.edu
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 92 14:16:38 EDT
Cc: jgacker (James G. Acker)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4dev PL73]
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 1529      



	Mr. Duffy:

	I've got a real deal for you!  "The Abiogenesis Story - Complete" is
a set of 1.46 x 10^12 four-hour videotapes which records, in real time, the 
entire history of molecular formation leading to the first self-
replicating RNA molecules enclosed by a lipid membrane, lying on a 
surface of pure montmorillonite!   

	View:

	-  The exciting formation of amines!  (Episode 4,000,000 - 8,000,000)

	-  The peptide bond (in episode 4,712,534,542)!

	-  The lipid membrane!  (Episode 54,965,790 is amazing!)

	-  Valiant phosphurus atoms breaking free of igneous
rocks and making their way to the surface of superheated springs, 
where they are incorporated into primitive energy mechanisms!
(Episodes 799,010, 2,230,401, and 22,003,491,023 are NOT TO BE 
MISSED!)

	This amazing offer comes to you from ALIEN NATION Productions,
who claim "if it happened, we've got it on tape!"

	The entire tape series can be yours for only:

	$19,999,999,999,999,999.95 !!!

	If you act now, you'll also receive a bonus set of tapes:

	"The first million years AFTER the K-T boundary event"

	...which Popular Acetate described as "riveting... you won't
fast-forward through even a MINUTE of it!"

	(Special offer on VCR repairs is attached.)

	ALIEN NATION Productions:  "If you've got the time, we've got the
tapes!"

	Send check, C.O.D., or MC, VISA, AmEx number for the full amount to:

	Jim Acker
	jgacker@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov

	(Your first tape will arrive in 6-8 weeks, and one approximately
every two weeks thereafter).
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: What is consciousness?
Date: 23 Nov 1992 21:54:28 GMT
Organization: sgi
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <TmumuB10w165w@kalki33>, kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
|> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
|> 
> > Could you please outline the procedure you use to decide what is
> > rubbish?   For example, I pointed out that one of your claims - 
> > consciousnesses can contact one another directly and that this 
> > can be tested - leads to a recursive problem.  Namely: if A claims
> > to contact another consciousness B directly, then I can only check 
> > this directly by contacting A's consciousness directly.
>
> Let me see if I have your idea straight. There are two souls, A 
> and B, right? Are you one of them or are you a third soul, C? In 
> that case, you can simultaneously contact both A and B.   Maybe 
> you could outline the problem in more detail. Better yet, e-mail 
> it to me.

Your claim was that consciousnesses could contact one another 
directly.    I pointed out that if A claims to contact B directly, 
then the only way I can check the truth or falsity of that is to 
contact A directly.

The trouble is, if A is kidding himself about contacting B, I may
just as well be kidding myself about contacting A.

The issue is not the contacting, but in your claim that this kind
of thing can be proved.   People who shared belief systems "prove"
one another's claims all the time.   But by sharing belief systems,
they may simply be sharing delusions.

jon.
From: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Supernova vs Abiogenesis
Date: 17 Nov 92 00:06:48 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us

In article <VcV9TB7w165w@kalki33>, kalki33!system@lakes writes:
>When were supernovae first observed?
>When was abiogenesis first observed?

Not bothering to point out the profound lack of point to Kookoo's
questions, let's compare the two.

We've seen bright lights in the sky for millennia.  As a separate
named phenomenon, understood as a star flaring up catastrophically,
(as in, there was nothing or almost nothing seen there beforehand,
and then there was lots and lots more light than expected, and then
back to the nothing) they have been observed since the 30s.

Much the same can be said for abiogenesis.  Folkloric notions about
animal origins have been around for millennia, which evaporated when
looked at closely.  But as a separate named phenomenon, understood
as a planet barren of life and then catastrophically full of life,
the event has been observed since the 30s.

In both cases, direct first hand observation is obviously impossible.

Before 1987, not one example of a supernova precursor star (as in,
point of light on a photographic plate) was known.  Yet the textbooks
said over and over again that stars under two circumstances could
explode as a supernova, yet the models were constantly being revised
every few years, proving that the previous models were all wrong.

Somehow this precarious state of scientific knowledge was not challenged
by the religious kooks out there.  Yet the evidence for abiogenesis is
roughly comparable, and that gets attacked.  Repeatedly.

How come?  It's certainly not based on any scientific thinking.

Note, by the way, the evidence for evolution and the multibillion year
age of the earth is on par with the evidence for the planets orbiting
the sun.  You have to be truly brain dead to not notice.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: johnsd2@jec322.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel Norman Johnson)
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Reply-To: johnsd2@jec322.its.rpi.edu.its1
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 01:05:49 GMT


---
			- Dan Johnson
And God said "Jeeze, this is dull"... and it *WAS* dull. Genesis 0:0

These opinions have had all identifiying marks removed, and are untraceable.
You'll never know whose they are.
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles)
Subject: Re: Would you believe anyway ???
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 92 10:48:17 EST
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor

In article <D0kDuB1w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
>esot@troi.cc.rochester.edu (Eric Sotnak) writes:
>
>> .>>   I hereby reach out to God with the desire to know him.  God, if you exi
>> .>> please cure all cases of AIDS by 12:00 noon tomorrow (11-12-92).  Since y
>> .>> are perfectly-loving, you will want to do so, since you are all-powerful,
>> .>> you are capable of doing so, since you are all-knowing, you will know (a)
>> .>> how to do so, and (b) that you are being offered this public opprtunity t
>> .>> prove your existence to all the unbelievers you so dearly want to convinc
>> .>> of your existence.  Failure to abide by the specified condition will be
>> .>> taken as justification for disbelieving the proposition <God exists>.
>> .>
>> .>A list of demands and a threat. Yep, that's really "reaching out to God
>> .>with a desire to know Him" all right.
>
>> Not demands, but a set of conditions by which God could provide rather good
>> evidence for his existence.
>
>Nope. Demands.

 Nopre, a set of requests with justifications. What's wrong with the
justifications? Or will you say, "Nope. They're just wrong."

>> Not a threat, but a statement of what seems to be a perfectly legitimate
>> interpretation of a null result.
>
>Nope. A threat.

 How is that going to hurt a God? Besides, does one 'threaten' an experiment
with disbelief if you get a null result?

>> Besides, like many others, I've gone through the sincere questing and come
>> up empty.
>
>It is not possible that your quest was both sincere and unsuccessful.

 You are free to believe that everyone who sys that is lying, I guess. I've
talked to too many people who say that to think that they are *all* lying.
 Besides, it's unfalsifiable. You quest. Either... a) you find, in which
case God exists, or... b) you don't find, in which case you weren't really
questing, and God still exists.

 You might want to check out the FAQ for alt.atheism. I can email it to
you. (Oh, and by the way, before you take the fact that an atheist believes
in evolution as a sign that the two are inextricably related, ask around
t.o for the CWACKers.)

>Sincerely,
>Kalki Dasa


 Sincerely,

 Ray Ingles
 ingles@engin.umich.edu

 "The meek can *have* the Earth. The rest of us are going to the
stars!" - Robert A. Heinlein
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: rjk@world.std.com (robert j kolker)
Subject: Re: More (verbal) Flooding of "the" flood
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 17:17:46 GMT

I should point out that a simple volume calculation will show that there
is not enough water on the Earth or in its atmosphere to have covered the
Earth to the hieght of Mt.Everest (plus 15 cubits).

It amazes me that people are still arguing this issue.

Bob Kolker


Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: In case Bales has convinced you of his honesty...
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 13:39:30 GMT

In article <7630@tekig7.PEN.TEK.COM> bobb@tekig1.PEN.TEK.COM (Robert W Bales) writes:
}
}Reality check III:
}
}In previous postings, Jim Meritt has implied that he would view agreement with
}as providing evidence for my side.  But his subject here implies that anyone
}who agrees with me is wrongly convinced.  Which is it?

OK.  Reality check.  Produce one and we'll see.  Simple, yes?
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: In case Bales has convinced you of his honesty...
Date: 21 Nov 92 05:07:54 GMT
Organization: sgi
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <7695@tekig7.PEN.TEK.COM>, bobb@tekig1.PEN.TEK.COM (Robert W Bales) writes:
|> 
> Jon Livesey writes:
> 
> |> On about Septeber 24, I posted a refutation of a number of items in Jim's
> |> list, including *specifically* the above.  If Jim responded, I didn't see
> |> the response.  He may not have seen my ~Sept. 24 article.  If he didn't, I
> |> will be glad to repost it.  In any case, the assertion above is flat wrong.
> 
> >No, you did not!
>
>	[much deleted]
> 
> In other words, I gave examples of processes which could cause isocrhons to
> agree.  And examples of processes which could cause isochrons to agree form,
> *by definition*, an explanation for how they could agree.
> 
> The characterization of my examples as "other processes at work that we don't
> fully understand" is misleading.   The impression is that I have just waved
> my hands and said "something could happen."  The reality is that I have given
> examples of processes which textbooks on radioactive dating say can give wrong
> dates.  The reality is that I have given examples which are known -- by old-
> earth theorists -- to have given the wrong dates.

I think I cut this down to the meat.   First of all, it is
*known* that under certain conditions, radio-dating can
give incorrect dates.   Now all Mr Bales has to to is to
show how processes which could give the wrong dates, could
also give congruent dates.

To do this, it is not enough for these processes to give
the wrong dates at random.  They have to give the wrong
dates in a highly systematic way.  That is, they have to
simulate decay processes: which show up as exponentials,
*and* they have to simulate the decay rates in such a way
that several exponential decay lines curves meet at a point
which we would expect if real decay processes were at work
for the time we think.    That is, as I have complained
many, many times before, you have not answered the question
by talking about "processes" and "errors".    You have to
show how these processes, whatever they are, with whatever
errors they produce, could produce these results.

And of course whatever mechanism, parameters, starting
conditions, etc, you assume, have to work in multiple
situations.   We can't have a different ad-hoc set of
fix-up for each example.

I don't read minds, but from this latest posting, I think
that after several years, it *still* has not penetrated to
you that when people talk about internal consistency, and
self-checking, they are *not* just claiming that if they
measure something with the same ruler twice, they get the
same result.

And just to dispel any possible confusion, the lie is not
in screwing up the explanation, or producing an explanation
I don't agree with.  I disgree with lots of people I don't
call liars.   The lie is in claiming after the fact to have 
"refuted" the many people who have raised this point with you.

jon.
From: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Would you believe anyway ???
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 92 04:44:56 EST
Reply-To: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Organization: Kalki's Infoline BBS, Aiken, SC, USA

ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles) writes:

> >> .>A list of demands and a threat. Yep, that's really "reaching out to God
> >> .>with a desire to know Him" all right.
> >
> >> Not demands, but a set of conditions by which God could provide rather goo
> >> evidence for his existence.
> >
> >Nope. Demands.
> 
>  Nopre, a set of requests with justifications. What's wrong with the
> justifications? Or will you say, "Nope. They're just wrong."

Nope. Demands.

> 
> >> Not a threat, but a statement of what seems to be a perfectly legitimate
> >> interpretation of a null result.
> >
> >Nope. A threat.
> 
>  How is that going to hurt a God? Besides, does one 'threaten' an experiment
> with disbelief if you get a null result?

Threats. Just more threats.

> 
> >> Besides, like many others, I've gone through the sincere questing and come
> >> up empty.
> >
> >It is not possible that your quest was both sincere and unsuccessful.
> 
>  You are free to believe that everyone who sys that is lying, I guess. I've
> talked to too many people who say that to think that they are *all* lying.
>  Besides, it's unfalsifiable. You quest. Either... a) you find, in which
> case God exists, or... b) you don't find, in which case you weren't really
> questing, and God still exists.

We never said you were lying.

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: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: What is conciousness?
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 23:43:51 GMT

In article <7NTHuB3w165w@kalki33>, kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
>kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu writes:
>>> Ok. Then what is the (talk.)origin of consciousness? Of course, first we
>>> will need to decide what consciousness is.
>> 
>>   Sorry, this is still a metaphysical question.  This is a forum for
>>the discussion of the origins of life, not of consciousness, and as
>>you stated, life is not consciousness.
>
>Ok. What is the (talk.)origin of life? Of course, first we will need to
>decide what life is. So, tell us your definition of life and then
>explain how this definition accounts for consciousness. Any definition
>of life must account for all the properties of life, and one of those
>properties is consciousness, is it not?

  You have yet to demonstrate that other than by bold assertion.

  I have a funny feeling you are going to define life as "that which has
consciousness" then base your argument on how even if molecules did combine into
a self-reproducing cell it wouldn't be lie because it wasn't conscious.

  You can prove me wrong by:

  a) Defining life without using the concept of consciousness in your
definition.

or

  b) Defining consciousness without using the concept of life in your
definition.

  Of course, you can do both at the same time too.

 |  __L__
-|-  ___  Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub
 |  | o | kv07@iastate.edu
 |/ `---' Iowa State University
/|   ___  Math Department
 |  |___| 400 Carver Hall
 |  |___| Ames, IA  50011
 J  _____
From: hyde@cs.dal.ca (Bill Hyde)
Subject: Re: Request Information for Young Earth
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 02:04:23 GMT

|> In a previous article, tsc@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (tong.s.chen) says:

|> 
|> >
|> >According to the biblical dating, the earth should only be 6,000 to 10,000
|> >years old, not millions or even billions years old.  Can someone kindly
|> >supply me a copy on some scientific (or non-biblical based) arguments for
|> >young earth.
|> >
|> 6,0000 to 10,000 years old???  I guess if you fall into Archbishop Ussher's
|> School of Biblical Dating.....  But let's graduate and look at the evidence
|> of an old earth, and listen to some good Hebrew scholarship which places
|> the date of the creation of Adam somewhere between 10,000 and 35,000 years
|> ago.
|> 					L8tr,
|> 						Derek



	I just returned from a conference on the climate of
	6,000 years ago.  In the next room was a meeting of
	fundies who believe that's four years before the world
	was created.  Luckily they didn't know what our "6Ka"
	badges meant.


						Bill Hyde
Department of Oceanography
Dalhousie University,
Halifax, Nova Scotia
hyde@Ice.ATM.Dal.Ca or hyde@dalac

Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: tlode@nyx.cs.du.edu (trygve lode)
Subject: Re: design in living organisms
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix @ U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 92 01:26:46 GMT

In article <By308G.IH8@access.digex.com> huston@access.digex.com (Herb Huston) writes:
>
>There are some additional design flaws that appear in the manufacturing
>process of humans: the fetal lanugo, the grasping reflex, the Moro reflex,
>and the fontanelles.  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!")

Trygve    (Who has always thought that neanderthals deserve better press
           than they usually get.) 
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: sdoe@nmsu.edu (Stephen Doe)
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Organization: New Mexico State University
Distribution: world, public
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 17:09:08 GMT

In article <4q58TB10w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
>smullins@cidmac.ecn.purdue.edu (Scott H Mullins) writes:
>
>> Kalki, you'all have gone from promising to post the material to claiming
>> that you already have in record time, even for a creationist.
>> >>    Velikovsky had lots of published papers too, didn't he?
>> >
>> >Yes, so do Dawkins and Gould. Oh, but then, you AGREE with them, right?
>> >So their papers REALLY count, right?
>> 
>> Their papers count because they generally write about things that they
>> know and for which they have gathered evidence.
>
>Right, evidence. Then show us a species changing into another
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
species.
^^^^^^^
Didn't you get my e-mail?  I excerpted the portion titled "Observed
Speciation" from the FAQ and sent it to you.  Either you didn't
receive my e-mail or you are ignoring it.  Makes me wonder if you
bothered to read the FAQ at all. . . 

SD
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Kalki continues to miss the point (surprise, surprise)
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 23:24:43 GMT

In article <2m38TB5w165w@kalki33>, kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
> igb@fulcrum.co.uk (Ian G Batten) writes:
> > 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:
> > 113242811782062978314575211587320462287317495794882519900489628
> > 25668835325234
> > 
> > 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.

  You completely missed the point.  It doesn't matter if the picker is
intelligent.  It doesn't even matter if it is made by intelligence.  Look, the
probability that the nine planets in the solar system fell into the exact order
they did is one in 362880.  Not an astronomical number (pardon the pun), but
large.  So we live in an improbably solar system.  Wow.

> > 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.

  That is not the point he is making.  Is English your native language?  If so,
have you graduated from junior high yet?  This is such a profound
misinterpretation of what was being said, I don't think it is possible to get at
the basic concepts you seem to be missing without filling this message with
several megs of text.

  Suffice it to say that he is not talking about life from life, but
probabilities.  The argument he gave has nothing to do with life.

 |  __L__
-|-  ___  Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub
 |  | o | kv07@iastate.edu
 |/ `---' Iowa State University
/|   ___  Math Department
 |  |___| 400 Carver Hall
 |  |___| Ames, IA  50011
 J  _____