HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: Evolution implied by the Bible
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 22:02:03 GMT

In article <justinf-090192224033@macintosh19.cco.caltech.edu>,
justinf@cco.caltech.edu (Justin Fang) writes:
> In article <1imcqnINN4va@uniwa.uwa.edu.au>, hartley@maths.uwa.oz.au (Mike
> Hartley) wrote:
> [stuff deleted]
> > 
> > The amount of genetic information `inside' an individual can not
> > be directly inferred from the individual's external appearence.
> 
> What do you mean by "information"? All normal humans have 46 chromosomes,
> and the same number of genes.

  All this led me to thinking about the possibilities.  Let us consider how many
"different" people there could be if Adam and Eve each had a different set of
non-homogonous chromosomes.

  Okay, we have 22 main chromosomes available, each can take any of four values,
that's 4^22=17,592,180,000,000 different dominant combinations, not to mention
the 8,796,093,000,000 combinations for recessive traits (can't have a recessive
dominant if you have a recessive trait as your dominant).  Ignore the recessive
traits since it doesn't matter what they are for now.

  Now then, for the 23 chromosome, the sex chromosome, we have two Xs from Eve
and an X and Y from Adam.  This means men can have three different possible
combinations of these, and women also have three different choices.

  Thus, the number of possible "different" men is 52,776,550,000,000 and there
are the same number of possible "different" women.  Since there are about
5,200,000,000 men and an equal number of women, this results in an expected
.001% chance that two women will be exactly the same, and the same for men.

  Note that there is no need for gene crossing, mutation, or any other changes
due to evolution.  So there is no problem with the "variety" found in the world
using this model.

  So, a great blow to that bastion of evil known as evolution.

     +---------------------------------------------------+
     |  Don't forget to chant: Smilies are superfluous   |
     |                         Give a guy a break        |
     |                         Smilies are superfluous   |
     |                         Give a guy a break        |
     +---------------------------------------------------+
From: fargher@unixg.ubc.ca (Robert Fargher)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Mark's Laws of Biology
Date: 8 Jan 93 00:48:13 GMT
Organization: The University of British Columbia
NNTP-Posting-Host: unixg.ubc.ca

In <1ichi8INNojs@uwm.edu> markh@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Mark) writes:

>I propose these very general laws on a linkage between procreation, aging and
>complexity:

>(1) In all species, over the long term, the average birth rate is equal to the
>    average death rate.

>Are laws (2), and (3) consistent with actual biological data? ((1) is
>obnviously valid).
 
   Hmm. Your law (1) is just as obviously invalid in my eyes.  First off,
consider Homo sap; our birth rate has significantly exceeded our death
rate for many moons, with punctuations (the Great Plague, the Black Death,
WWII).  I don't have the data handy, but the doubling time of humans has
greatly decreased over many centuries.
  Considering other organisms, a few seconds thought will convince you
that (1) cannot be true.  If the birth rate equalled the death rate, no
species would ever go extinct.
-- 
Robert Fargher  fargher@unixg.ubc.ca |  The number of things that I know
Dept. of Physiology, UBC             |  absolutely nothing about is increasing
Vancouver, BC, Canada, V6T 1Z3       |  at an alarming rate!
From: brinkman@si151a.llnl.gov
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Please post FAQ
Date: 4 Jan 93 18:36:25 GMT


   In article <1993Jan3.014942.23725@csrd.uiuc.edu> andrews@sp95.csrd.uiuc.edu
(John Andrews) writes...

>I also want the FAQ.  I asked for this a month ago and got zero replies.
>Please help!!

   Humm.  I posted the list of available FAQ's just a couple of weeks ago.
Oh well, here it comes again.

   Note to Chris Stassen: I haven't made the updates to the list that you
requested yet.  I will get to it in the next week or so.  Sorry for the
inconvenience.

>John Andrews (andrews@csrd.uiuc.edu) "He who dies with the shortest .sig, wins"

--
Matt Brinkman
brinkman@edseq1.llnl.gov
From: harvey@indyvax.iupui.edu
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Book: The Creationists
Date: 8 Jan 93 01:07:03 -0500
Distribution: world
Organization: Indiana University-Purdue University at Indianapolis

In article <1ii7c8INNknc@crcnis1.unl.edu>, e_p@unlinfo.unl.edu (edgar pearlstein) writes:
>       A new book, The Creationists, by Ronald Numbers, gives the history of
> "Creation Science".  I haven't yet seen the book, but there is a rave review
> in Nature, Dec. 17, 1992, page 637.

I.U. already has two copies on order, and one's for our campus!  Catalog info:

 Search Request: T=CREATIONISTS                          Indiana Univ. Libraries
 BOOK - Record 1 of 2 Entries Found                                   Long View
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Author:         Numbers, Ronald L.
 Title:          The creationists / Ronald L. Numbers.
 Edition:        1st ed.
 Published:      New York : A. A. Knopf, 1992.
 Description:    xvii, 458 p. <16> p. of plates : ill, ports ; 25 cm.
 Notes:          Includes bibliographical references and index.
 Subject headings:
                 Creationism.
                 Evolution--Religious aspects--Christianity.
 ISBN:           0679401040
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  LOCATION:              CALL NUMBER                STATUS:
  Blgtn UNDERGRADUATE    TEMPORARY CONTROL          On Order
    LIBRARY                NUMBER: ACZ4306
--
James Harvey
harvey@iupui.edu or harvey@indiana.edu
From: jani.patokallio%acc1bbs@ssr.com (Jani Patokallio) 
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Plato's STATESMAN/Age of
Date: 3 Jan 93 21:53:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Advanced Computer Concepts BBS, New Rochelle, NY 914-654-1981
Reply-To: jani.patokallio%acc1bbs@ssr.com (Jani Patokallio) 

Let's accept your hypothesis for time being and see what comes out of it.

-> Two of the least large, least impressive, least assuming, inconspicuous,
-> non-candidates for deity in the entire universe today are the
-> far-off planets Jupiter and Saturn.  An overwhelming majority of people
-> in the world couldn't even find them or point them out.
-> 
-> And yet, just 4000 years ago, these two planets were the two chieftain
-> gods in every nation on earth, every religion on earth...  the two most
-> feared entities in existence.  Given present realities, this not only
-> makes no sense, it is impossible.

If the Earth was near Jupiter and Saturn 4000 years ago, how did the people
see Venus, another planet well detailed in early mythology and astrology
but quite difficult to see from the orbit of Jupiter?

-> I have claimed that this planet once orbitted a small electromagnetic
-> star, one pole forever pointed straight at that star, animals on the

Evidently, it never occurred to you that if this was the case, one half
the earth would be scorched and the other would be at absolute zero.
Or did life exist only in the twilight zone?  Mind you, if this star
magically did not emit any heat, everything would freeze.  Just as they
would during the transit from Jupiter to the current position.

Oh, sorry, I forgot that the laws of physics were different then and
that the felt effect of heat maintenance prevented this from happening.

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

---
 . AME 1.07 .
From: arandia@panix.com (Joel Arandia)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Biology majors pleez!
Date: 11 Jan 93 10:07:25 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC


Hi!  Are there biologists who believe in Creationism?  Is evolution a necessary
part of Biology?

Mr. Curious
From: arandia@panix.com (Joel Arandia)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Future evolution of Creationism
Keywords: future
Date: 9 Jan 93 22:52:41 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC

In <1993Jan9.100231.22625@klaava.Helsinki.FI> cust_ts@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Tero
 Sand) writes:

>In article <8JAN199313510696@juliet.caltech.edu> waynebro@juliet.caltech.edu (Broughton, Wayne Jeremy) writes:
>>(This actually raises an interesting point: IS the general public in fact
>>comfortable with Copernican astronomy?  I wonder if a large percentage of
>>the population is as ignorant of that as they are of evolutionary theory.
>>I have been appalled to hear people admit gross misunderstandings of the
>>structure of the solar system or the nature of stars and planets).

>Please don't consider this idea outrageous, by the way. I personnally know
>someone who, among other things, didn't know that the Sun was a star.
>Isolated case? Maybe, but alarming nonetheless - I can't imagine anybody
>not learning what stars are, with the education level this individual
>had, which leaves as the only option a process I call 'active
>forgetting'.

I can't help but blame the scientific community for not popularizing science 
enough.  There seem to be very few scientists who get up and try to make
current science understood by 'normal human beings.'  As a result, science
becomes this mystical, impossible-to-understand-by-normal-people thing.
I think this is where people gain a certain mistrust of science's findings
or anything scientific.

joel d. arandia
From: watson@sce.carleton.ca (Stephen Watson)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Evolution implied by the Bible
Date: 6 Jan 93 16:52:14 GMT
Organization: Carleton University

vanweer@ecf.toronto.edu (VANWEERDENBURG NICHOLAS JOHN) writes:

>In article <1993Jan5.002839.1093@smds.com> rh@ishmael.UUCP (Richard Harter) writes:
[Richard's VERY amusing theory deleted.  The ICR themselves couldn't have done
better ;-)  The scary part is, its not so different from some actual
fundy theology I've heard]
>>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.

>I almost believe that this is a humorous post, but I can't really tell.

I'm treading on thin ice here, relying on my memory, but perhaps it
would clarify the issue for you if I tell you that Richard was also
the one (I think!) who, last Fall, posted the young earth "proof"
based on the change in human body temperature.  

Sorry, Richard, but you need to start using smilies.  Creationists
descend so often into self-parody that it gets difficult to tell the
spoofs from the genuine item.

>Does this mean I'm almost perfect?  Since I only have 1/( 2 500 000 000 )th
>of the original sin in me?

>By the way, how do know this?  Do you have reasons for your strange fantasy,
>or is it simply that since it makes the world pink and rosy for you it
>must be right. 

To quote a certain immortal epigrammist: "It's a joke son, a joke".
--
==Steve Watson: watson@sce.carleton.ca===Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario==
| The above is the output of a 7th-order Markovian analysis of all posts on   |
| this group for the past month.  Not only is it not Carleton's opinion, it's |
| not even *my* opinion: it's really just a mish-mash of all YOUR opinions!   |
From: rowe@pender.ee.upenn.edu (Mickey Rowe)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Future evolution of Creationism
Keywords: future
Date: 8 Jan 93 23:20:51 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <8JAN199313510696@juliet.caltech.edu>
     waynebro@juliet.caltech.edu (Broughton, Wayne Jeremy) writes:

>Also, could anybody respond to one of my other original questions, the
>status of Creationism world-wide?  Say in Islamic countries? 

I can give you one data point.  One of my colleagues is Iranian, and I
asked him about creationism there.  He left Iran just before the
revolution that brought Khomeini to power, but hopefully his
impressions were accurate both for then and now...

When he was growing up (and I have no reason to expect this to have
changed), religion classes were mandatory in all schools (no
distinction between public and private, of course) and were a big part
of each day.  Despite that, in biology they were taught evolution.  I
got the impression from him that the school system in Iran is much
more rigorous than here in the USA, and that the average student there
gets a better education there than the average student here.

He brushed aside creationism with a sort of "Oh, there are a few
crackpots everywhere, of course" response.

>Wayne.

Mickey Rowe     (rowe@pender.ee.upenn.edu)

P.S.  Jim Lippard, if you're reading this, you can now ask Phil
Johnson directly about the free will thing in Anaheim last year... 
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: Velikovsky/Catastrophism Readings
Keywords: Merrit FAQ
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 15:02:31 GMT

In article <197@fedfil.UUCP> news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
}Those interested in following the unfolding saga of the revival of
}catastrophism as a basis for natural history can do a LOT better than
}the so-called Merrit FAQ.
Right.  Unfortunately, reality as observed does not concur...

}I would recommend Velikovsky's own books for
}starters.  After that, David Talbott's "THE SATURN MYTH", for the basic
}outline of the solar system as it stood prior to the flood and shortly
}afterwards.

heheheheheheheheheheheeee.
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: Throop/Nietzsche problems
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 20:36:52 GMT

In article <1JAN199319332665@iago.caltech.edu> lmh@iago.caltech.edu (Henling, Lawrence M.) writes:
}In article <190@fedfil.UUCP>, news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes...
}all of the ^lines
}> 
}^>lesser known fact that new studies are revealing that the spiritual
}^>realm which most normal people believe in and can sense, once existed at
}^>least in part on this earth.  At present we cannot perceive this other
}^>realm directly or with our senses. . .
}.. 
}^That's why I said "most people" instead of "everybody".  Obviously, I didn't
}^intend to include nerds in the discussion.  I tend to write a little bit more
}^precisely than you may be accustomed to;  try reading my stuff a bit more
}^carefully.
}
} Please explain how we cannot sense this realm which most normal people
}can sense? You claim this is a precise statement?

Your question is somewhat backwards, somewhat self answering.  Ted DEFINES 
as "nerds" those that cannot be taken in by his line.  If you are capable
of independent thought and search for observables, you are virtually by
definition not one that buys the preachy inobservables he is talking about.

But yeah, for Ted "nerds" IS a "bit more precise".
At least, more precise than a lot of the other mysterious stuff that comes
from him on occasion: non-inverse-square gravity, electromagnetically
induced telepathy, ...
From: swf@tools3teradata.com (Stan Friesen)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Future evolution of Creationism
Keywords: future
Date: 10 Jan 93 19:35:53 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <1993Jan9.225241.4968@panix.com>, arandia@panix.com (Joel Arandia) writes:
|> I can't help but blame the scientific community for not popularizing science 
|> enough.  There seem to be very few scientists who get up and try to make
|> current science understood by 'normal human beings.'  As a result, science
|> becomes this mystical, impossible-to-understand-by-normal-people thing.
|> I think this is where people gain a certain mistrust of science's findings
|> or anything scientific.

This is hardly a fair criticism.  Proper presentation of science in a non-
technical manner is a *very* difficult skill.  It is far too easy to either
'simplify' things in such a way as to produce false statements, or to leave
too much in.  (Not to mention the tenedency of 'popular' account to treat
scientific knowledge as 'given' and 'absolute' - about the only popularizer
I know of who regularly hanldes this well is Stephen Gould).
-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mike A. McAngus)
Subject: Evolution implied by the Bible
Organization: Homebrew Virtual Reality Labs
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Mon, 04 Jan 1993 00:05:57 GMT

[ Article crossposted from alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc ]
[ Author was Martin Dougiamas ]
[ Posted on Sun, 3 Jan 1993 07:57:20 GMT ]

Christians among you: explain this.

If Man was created only thousands of years ago, and we are all
descended from common stock... why is there such a wide variety
in our genetic pool today?

Do you believe that the ancestors of people as diverse as South
American forest pygmies, Zulus, Europeans and Japanese were the
same as yours only a few thousand years ago?  If you do (and you
must, if you take the Bible at all seriously) then you must believe
a great deal of evolution has occurred since then.  If not, I 
would like to hear your arguments.

If you do admit this much evolution can take place in such a short
time (hundreds of generations) then what objections can you take
against the extension of the idea to the theory of Darwinian
evolution as it stands today?

Martin
--
Your eyes are weary from staring at the screen.  Your eyelids feel very heavy.
You feel sleepy. Notice how restful it is to watch the cursor blink. Close your
eyes. The opinions stated above are yours. You cannot imagine why you ever felt
otherwise.  When you awake you will follow up this post and enthusiastically
agree with it.  Then you will send all your money to martin@cs.curtin.edu.au.
-- 
Mike McAngus                    |You are a fluke of the Universe.  You have no 
mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org            |right to be here, and whether you can hear it
The Truth is still the Truth    |or not the Universe is laughing behind your 
Even if you choose to ignore it.|back.  -- National Lampoon, Deteriorata
From: 00prneubauer@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu (Paul Neubauer)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: I need transitional knowledge
Date: 12 Jan 93 13:59:09 GMT
Organization: Ball State U.

In article <1993Jan9.045359.13856@panix.com>, 
 arandia@panix.com (Joel Arandia) writes:
> I'm not a biologist, heck, I'm not even a scientist.  I'm not a creationist.
> I'm just confused.  Could someone(maybe with a phd) explain to me how a fossil
> becomes transitional?  I mean who decides that a fossil is transitional and 
> what marks it thus?  Some creationist guy is buggin me and telling me that
> Archeopteryx is a MOSAIC form.  I guess he means that just because something
> has attributes or both bird and reptile doesn't mean that it's related to 
> either.  Yeah, it does sound stupid, but I can't figure out a good rebutt.
> And what are the other 'birds' that he tells me are in the same strata?

No, you and all the other people who have replied to this article have
it all backwards.  Of course Archeopteryx is in `Mosaic' form.  You
just have the wrong meaning of `Mosaic' in mind.  It's not that
Archeopteryx is made up of a bunch of little tiles.  It's that it is
embedded in a stone tablet like the ones that Moses brought down from
the mountain containing the Mosaic laws.

This -> :-) is a smiley.  Use as many as you need to make the
preceding paragraph palatable.  If administration of enough smileys is
not possible, do not induce vomiting.  Wash your screen and see your
doctor immediately. :-)

-- 
Paul Neubauer   00prneubauer@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu  00prneubauer@bsuvax1.BITNET
                00prneubauer@bsu-ucs.UUCP       neubauer@bsu-cs.UUCP
From: huston@access.digex.com (Herb Huston)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: _Eoraptor_, very early dinosaur, announced
Date: 6 Jan 1993 22:01:44 GMT
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: access.digex.com

The _Washington Post_ for today (January 6, 1993) had a front-page story
on a news conference at the National Geographic Society yesterday at which
the discovery of _Eoraptor_ (Dawn Plunderer) was announced.  Since I don't
have the newspaper in front of me right now, I'll omit details except to
note that there was pointer to an article in _Nature_ by Serano et al. for
this coming Thursday (January 7, 1993).

-- Herb Huston
-- huston@access.digex.com
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: isaak@aurora.com (Mark Isaak)
Subject: Re: Future evolution of Creationism
Reply-To: isaak@aurora.com (Mark Isaak)
Organization: The Aurora Group
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 93 18:33:11 GMT

Okay, I'll add my speculations.

The primary purpose of the modern Creationism movement is to spread
hate.  Many religious groups use it both to redirect scrutiny from
themselves and to unite the groups against a common "enemy."  (If you
doubt this, just look at the "fruits of evolution" exhibit at the
ICR's Creationism Museum.)  Most Creationists probably don't
consciously look on it that way, but they adopt an "us vs. them"
mentality and go along with it nonetheless.  As a tool for gaining
and holding power, such hatemongery can be highly effective; just
consider how long the Inquisition lasted.

However, such a policy has two inherent weaknesses.  First, making an
enemy of someone is usually a reciprocal arrangement, and after a
while, you will find that the group you are fighting is fighting you
back.  Of course, even though this does hurt individuals, it can work
to your group's advantage, as you can then show concrete examples of
enmity where you only has propoganda before.

The more serious problem is that when you focus all your energy on
finding fault with other people, you have no time left to find and
improve your own faults.  (In fact, I suspect that a major attraction
of fundamentalist religions is that they give people an excuse to
judge other people and to avoid looking at their own problems.)  Left
alone, your character defects may flourish and may eventually destroy
you, much as Jim Bakker and Jimmy Swaggart self-destructed.  Based on
how seldom we see Creationists discuss Creationism, it appears that
Creationism is already rotten to the core with this disease of denial.
It's only a matter of time before the symptoms become more pronounced.

Where then, is Creationism headed?  In an open society, I don't think
they can make too much headway, especially the young-earth Creationists.
There's just too much evidence that they are dead wrong, and they won't
be able to suppress all of it.  They will gain power in times of
economic and political uncertainty when people want something concrete
to hang their fears on, but their numbers will drop again during times
of prosperity.  In the less open societies, however, especially Eastern
Europe and Latin America, they have great opportunities to establish a
modern Creationist Inquisition.  If they succeed (and I think they will,
in at least a few countries), Creationism will hold sway for another
century or more until its own weaknesses make those places susceptible
to conquest by nations which didn't stop their scientific advancement.
-- 
Mark Isaak           "Every generation thinks it has the answers, and every
isaak@aurora.com      generation is humbled by nature." - Philip Lubin
From: daemon@jatz.aarnet.edu.au ()
Newsgroups: aus.netstatus
Subject: VIC troubles Tue night (a few)
Date: 12 Jan 1993 15:17:34 GMT
Organization: Australian Academic and Research Network (AARNet)
Reply-To: Douglas Ray <ray@ariel.ucs.unimelb.EDU.AU>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 139.130.204.4

something took out the links to

	Western Australia
	Telecom Research Labs (clayton, vic)
	St Vincents Hospital (melbourne, vic)
	Geelong Hospital (vic)
	Victorian College of Agriculture (Hawthorn)

at 22:35 on tues night.   I suspect it's telecom rather than
unimelb, but more info as it comes to hand.
						- douglas ray
						doug@unimelb.edu.au
						networks & comms