HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bobb@tekig1.PEN.TEK.COM (Robert W Bales)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Bales is a liar: evidence - one case
Date: 17 Nov 92 02:12:17 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <1e98tnINN9gj@morrow.stanford.edu> salem@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Bruce 
Salem) writes:

>> me

>>I must disagree.  If I have not answered them satisfactorily, I have answered
>>them unsatisfactorily, which means I have answered them!

>	Well, I'll be Damned! We ARE to be so BLESSED with your merest
>effort to EVEN reply,

Notice the hypothetical "if."  Notice the contex.  This isn't even remotely
what I meant.

> even if that reply is but an evasion or a meaningless answer!

Except the question was "What evidence has been collected in favor of
creationism?"  and the answer stated such evidence.  This is not an evasion.
This is not a meaningless answer.

Bruce doesn't have to agree that this is evidence for creation.  But he can
take two positions:  he can either say why he disagrees with me and we can
enter into a discussion on our respective views, or he can ignore the evidence
and the objective putting forth of his case and continue to attack me.


   Bob Bales
   Tektronix, Inc.

I help Tektronix make their instruments. They don't help me make my opinions.
From: lcarr@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (lincoln carr)
Subject: Re: The Meaning of (A) Life
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 01:29:35 GMT

In article <1992Nov15.230048.26012@u.washington.edu> zzz@byron.u.washington.edu (Sample) writes:
>Logic can only be produced from a 
>subjective view point.  Scientists 
>claim to be objective when, in fact, 
>they're just putting themselves
>"in others shoes".
>
>Good and bad, black and white, only
>have meaning from =A= subjective view.
>
>The meaning of =A= life is it's "subjective view"
>
>To ask "what is the meaning of life?" is to
>hope to be objective -- and no logic, no 
>information, can come from objectivity -- so
>the question can't be answered.

Although I don't claim any real ability to gather objective truth, if
truth were subjective, no one would ever grow old, be poor, etc.
While consistency of systems may be our best means of making
determinations of truth or falsity, there must ultimately be a
grounding for truth.  If truth is not information corresponding to
ultimate reality, what is it?


-- 
Lincoln R. Carr, Computer Scientist-Philosopher    lcarr@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
"Treat all rational autonomous moral agents, whether in the form of yourself
or another, never as means solely, but always as ends in themselves."
                  Immanuel Kant, from "Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals"
From: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Sexual Selection  (was: microevolution (the rest))
Date: 17 Nov 92 01:35:39 GMT
Organization: animal -- coelomate -- deuterostome

In article <1992Nov13.174536.9622@aurora.com> isaak@aurora.com (Mark Isaak) writes:
>In article <101715@bu.edu> colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby) writes:

>Does sexual selection always imply dimorphism?

It seems to be highly correlated with it. I would bet if you plotted
male harem size (across as many "independent" taxa as possible) vs.
some measure of sexual dimorphism, you'd see a nice relationship.
(I would bet that this has been done, in fact. I'll do a half-assed
search for a ref tomorrow and see if I find anything.)

>Are the diopsid's eye stalks really a result of sexual selection?

I don't know the system.

>Are there any other examples of sexual selection without sexual
>dimorphism?

I don't know (but I'm not really knee deep in that sort of knowledge
either).

>Mark Isaak           "Every generation thinks it has the answers, and every

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"
From: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: In case Bales has convinced you of his honesty...
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 92 03:00:49 EST
Reply-To: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Organization: Kalki's Infoline BBS, Aiken, SC, USA

dwolff@cozy.Prime.COM (David Wolff) writes:

> > Now, ask us to prove that this Supreme Godhead has been observed, and
> > we'll tell you how you personally can observe Him.
> 
> How about just sending us a photograph?  If he's been observed, or really
> exists, you should be able to present some simple, unmistakable proof.

Do you mean to say that you will accept a photograph of God as proof of
His existence? Because we can definitely send one to you.

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: lking@athena.mit.edu (Loren King)
Subject: Game theory and Artificial Life
Keywords: Survival, environment, games
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 20:12:35 GMT

In article <101998@bu.edu>, colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby) writes:

|> In article <1992Nov11.220916.4256@athena.mit.edu> lking@athena.mit.edu 
|> (Loren King) writes:
|> 
|> >Well, the subject line sort of says it all.  Robert Axelrod, William
|> >Hamilton and John Maynard Smith have done what you've suggested,
|> >although with a different game (i.e. the prisoner's dilemma).
|>                                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|> 
|> A recent issue of Nature (Oct 29) had a simple model of the prisoners
|> dilemna with spatial stucture. A N*N (it varied) grid had a single
|> player per square with a fixed strategy (cooperate or defect). Each square
|> played each of the surrounding squares and the player with the highest
|> score inherited the square. For some sets of parameters, both strategies
|> remained on the board. Chaotic spatial patterns and kaliedoscopic
|> oscillations could be seen under different starting conditions. 



I haven't had time to read this yet, but while we're on the topic, there
are a couple of neat volmes in the Sante Fe Institute Studies in Complexity
Series, titled "Artificial Life" (1987) and "Artificial Life II" (1990).
A lot of comp-sci demons in both, but Richard Dawkins squeezed in a paper 
on "The Evolution of Evolvability" in the first volume.

The second volume has some results similar to the ones you describe above:
different local rules create complex, and sometimes counter-intuitive, global 
patterns in the game space.  One result finds that pockets of strategies in 
Nash Equilibrium can sustain themselves even when surrounding strategies are 
unstable.

However, I'll stop babbling and go read the Nature article.




Loren King
MIT
From: lking@athena.mit.edu (Loren King)
Subject: The K and Poverty of Imagination (was Re: Probability of Evolution)
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 20:42:05 GMT



Kalki "so the computer built itself, right?" Dasa:


 What's so outrageous about the universe "building itself"?  Why is this
any more difficult to believe than "a dvine and all-powerful, all-knowing
being created everything in the universe, but NOTHING CREATED THIS BEING!"

 Well, if you've got to believe something, I think it should be something
for which the untestable component of that belief is minimized.  God may
be a simple assumption in terms of efficacy of explanation (i.e. one 
proposition explains everything: "God dit it!"), but the import of this
`catch-all' assumption is staggering and problematic ... who or what created
this God?  If nothing/nobody, then why postulate it in the first place?
If it created itself, why shouldn't similarly complex entities (i.e.
humans, ecosystems) be autopoetic?

 So a simple and old question which no one has yet answered to the benefit
of religious belief:

... if the universe doesn't give rise to autopoetic systems, then who created
who what-ever does give rise to them?

 ... in short, who, or what, created God?


 Kalki, no one is denying that systems of inference and knowledge accumulation
have to rest upon some untestable epistemic and ontological hypotheses, however
provisional.  Given this, the goal is to minimize the untestable charater of 
these premises.  The argument is that your system of belief raises more questions
than it offers the potential of answering.  Why should we buy into it?


Loren King
MIT
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: Bales is a liar: evidence - one case
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 14:22:16 GMT

In article <1992Nov13.201451.186018@zeus.calpoly.edu> skroger@zeus.calpoly.edu (Seth L. Kroger) writes:
}m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
}>In article <7540@tekig7.PEN.TEK.COM> bobb@tekig1.PEN.TEK.COM (Robert W Bales) writes:
}>}As evidence to show I'm a liar, Jim Meritt posted some questions which he said
}>}I have not answered.  In a previous article, I showed that even if Jim was
}>}right about the questions, it would not prove me a liar.  However, Jim is
}>}wrong: I have answered them.
}>
}>False.  Since we disagree, how about SOMEONE ELSE'S evaluation of the
}>contention.  BALES says that he has answered himself, MERITT says that
}>he has not.
}
}My own evalutaion is that he has not answered the questions in any manner
}close to satisfactory.  He hasn't shown a scrap of positive evidence for
}creation so far.  

}>It is my opinion that your "case" presented does NOT validate your assertion.
}>Does anyone else?  And until _I_ think it does, I shall continue to dredge
}>up your past posturing.  I am, of course, open to an opinion from anyone else.
}
}IMHO, his assertion that he has answered the questions has not been
}validated.  

Thank you.  Notice this, Bales?
Does ANYONE think that he has?


Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: robd@cherry09.cray.com (Robert Derrick)
Subject: Quote, the first
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: 18 Nov 92 17:08:47 CST

Chapter 8, "The Doctrine of Evolution", starts out with (on p.183)

"All reputable evolutionary biologists now agree that the evolution of
life is directed by the process of natural selection, and by nothing
else."

  - Julian Huxley, Darwin Centennial Celebration, 1959, quoted
from _Evolution After Darwin_, Tax and Callender, eds, pp.265-266.

Kind of a sweeping statement.  How do folks feel about this?

Of course, he goes on to bring up the "new" debates, the disagreements,
punk eek, etc. as examples of just how wrong Huxley's statement was.


Seems I remember a nineteenth century physicist making the same kind
of sweeping remark about the near state of completation that the field
of physics was then enjoying.  Just before the discovery of X-rays.

He then goes on to what is a fairly typical "Creationist" argument
that the theory of evolution must be in trouble if its foundation
is being so thoroughly shaken.

Using this, he makes the usual claim (why do I think I am going to
be repeating that line, over and over and over...?) that evolution
is a desparate attempt "to enlist natural evidence in support of an
alternative to an unwanted and unsatisfactory spiritual world view." (p.184)

Sound familiar to you, too?
--

rob derrick				robd@cherry.cray.com
From: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: What is consciousness?
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 92 03:05:56 EST
Reply-To: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Organization: Kalki's Infoline BBS, Aiken, SC, USA

kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu writes:

>    You still haven't said why you consider them to have consciousness.
> I certainly can't tell if a virus has consciousness, so I guess they're
> definitely not alive.  I also can't tell if a plant has consciousness,
> so plant's aren't alive either.
> 
>    Do I get points for not having my question answered?  Is there any
> bonus for having a circular argument used (like "all things that are 
> alive have consciousness"/"life is revealed by consciousness")?
> 
>    Can you give an example of non-carbon-based life?  If not then such
> an assertion is unfounded, since you have yourself demanded an example 
> of abiogenesis.
> 
>    Anyway, I agree with whoever suggested we ignore Kalki; this will
> be my last reply to him, and I say we all join in a t.o-wide boycott.

We have answered all your questions very precisely, but whether we
answer or not, you are too confused to understand anything. Thank you
for not posting any more useless replies to us. We are very much in
favor of the called for "boycott" if it means that there will be no more
rubbish for us to sweep up.

Sincerely,
Kalki "Look at it...who are you?" 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: lking@athena.mit.edu (Loren King)
Subject: A SOLUTION!!! ... to the Collective Action Problem re Kalki's Book
Keywords: diminishing unit cost
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 21:18:29 GMT


How about ten of us offer $1 ... we all mail it to one
person (volunteer, hopefully), and that person buys the
book which Kalki is screaming at us to read, and then
summarizes it for the rest of us?

I'm willing to chip in a buck or two, but I don't think I'm
a good choice for a reviewer ... in fact, I say we
let Kalki choose which of us HE wants the book reviewed
by, just to make it fair.

How 'bout it?
From: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Supernova vs Abiogenesis
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 92 05:17:06 EST
Reply-To: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Organization: Kalki's Infoline BBS, Aiken, SC, USA

jviv@usmi01.midland.chevron.com (John Viveiros) writes:

> In article <97921@netnews.upenn.edu> weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P 
> >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.
> 
> This is an analogy I've used for a while.  Remember that the Catholic
> Church fought this revelation tooth and nail, because it would take man
> out of its central, most important place in the Universe.

> Notice how we
> all became sinners after Copernicus :-0 (OH NO!).

Not all of us did.

Sincerely,
Kalki "It's like shootin' atheists in a barrel" Dasa


       -------------------------------------------------------
      |  Don't forget to chant:   Hare Krishna Hare Krishna   |
      |                           Krishna Krishna Hare Hare   |
      |                           Hare Rama Hare Rama         |
      |                           Rama Rama Hare Hare         |
      |                                                       |
      |   Kalki's Infoline BBS Aiken, South Carolina, USA     |
      |        (kalki33!kalki@lakes.trenton.sc.us)            |
       -------------------------------------------------------
From: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Date: 14 Nov 92 20:09:33 GMT
Reply-To: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Organization: Kalki's Infoline BBS, Aiken, SC, USA

isaak@aurora.com (Mark Isaak) writes:

> In article <e0N3TB8w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
> >No one has ever seen a living organism arise from an assemblage
> >of lifeless matter, have they?
> 
> Actually, before the idea of spontaneous generation was finally put to
> rest in the last century or so, people saw living organims arise from
> lifeless matter all the time.  At least, they thought they did.
> Interesting, isn't it, that the idea of abiogenesis never became
> controversial until the Creationists started feeling threatened?

What is interesting is how many "scientists" bought the idea of
spontaneous generation lock, stock and barrel, until other scientists
brought them to their senses, as the scientists of the Bhaktivedanta
Institute are attempting to do with those who have bought into the
ridiculuous theory of evolution.

> >I agree with you that, since no one can agree on a model for the
> >evolution of life from matter, it is unscientific to claim that it
> >happened. It is, therefore, an article of faith to state that one knows
> >such evolution occured.
> 
> Nonsense.  At one time, life did not exist.  Now it does.  Obviously,
> some kind of change took place in the interim.  Far from being "an
> article of faith," that's basic logic.  At issue now is only which
> model for that change best fits the data.

What is your evidence that "at one time, life did not exist"?

Sincerely,
Kalki Dasa




       -------------------------------------------------------
      |  Don't forget to chant:   Hare Krishna Hare Krishna   |
      |                           Krishna Krishna Hare Hare   |
      |                           Hare Rama Hare Rama         |
      |                           Rama Rama Hare Hare         |
      |                                                       |
      |   Kalki's Infoline BBS Aiken, South Carolina, USA     |
      |        (kalki33!kalki@lakes.trenton.sc.us)            |
       -------------------------------------------------------
From: dnash@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Dave Nash)
Subject: Re: A SOLUTION!!! ... to the Collective Action Problem re Kalki's Bo
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 18:44:51 GMT
Keywords: diminishing unit cost

In article <o1mFuB13w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
>lking@athena.mit.edu (Loren King) writes:
>> I'm willing to chip in a buck or two, but I don't think I'm
>> a good choice for a reviewer ... in fact, I say we
>> let Kalki choose which of us HE wants the book reviewed
>> by, just to make it fair.
>
>You guys are about the most impatient lot i've ever seen! Why not just
>hold your water until I get permission from Dr. Thompson to post his
>book over the net verbatim? He's in Europe until Nov. 30, but I am 99%
>sure he will say yes.

Funny YOU should accuse people here of "impatience."
You're the one who keeps imploring us to "read the book," fella. . .

>
>Sincerely,
>Kalki "What mutation causes Darwin's Syndrome?" Dasa

Oh, one of the few beneficial ones in the last two centuries or so ;-)


Don't forget to chant:

When Evolution is Outlawed
Only Outlaws Will Evolve

-- 
David Nash                  | Gradual Student, Chemistry
                            | University of Illinois (Urbana)
(dnash@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu)    | This .sig is made of 100% recycled electrons.
(nash@aries.scs.uiuc.edu)   | No binary trees were killed to make it.
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: mmeyer@m2.dseg.ti.com (Mark Meyer)
Subject: Re: Theory of Creation and Proof
Organization: TI DSEG, Spring Creek, Plano, Tx.
	<1992Nov17.171715.15113@nntpserver.chevron.com>
	<MMEYER.92Nov18143253@m2.dseg.ti.com>
	<1992Nov20.133150.16641@spectrum.xerox.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 19:58:26 GMT

In article <1992Nov20.133150.16641@spectrum.xerox.com> eschbach@abc.wrc.xerox.com (Reiner Eschbach) writes:
> I think you are malvolently excluding Last Thursdayism! LT'ism is by
> far the most consistent and logical theory of creation.

	'Fraid not.  The One Truth is, of course, Last Fridayism.  It
has all the explanatory power of that old, discredited Last
Thursdayism, PLUS the fact that God was rushing to get out and start
his weekend explains why the world is such a cock-up.
	Deal with THAT, pink boy!  :-)

-- 
Mark Meyer                                               | mmeyer@dseg.ti.com |
Texas Instruments, Inc.                                  +--------------------+
Every day, Jerry Junkins is grateful that I don't speak for TI.
"There's lots of bread in the freezer!"  "No, I threw it out.  Hard as a rock."
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: consciousness: a Kalki sampler
From: kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu
Date: 17 Nov 92 23:55:26 EST
Organization: Wesleyan University

In article <1992Nov17.164109@IASTATE.EDU>, kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:
> In <eDLDuB2w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
>>
>>>  Uh oh.  Kalki just entered stage two of the Creationist on t.o.  After fali
>>>to wow everybody into instant submission, he resorts to insult.  Stage three,
>>>where reality finally sets in and he starts throwing patches onto his claims,
>>>close at hand.  Lets hope he doesn't go all the way to stage 5: Tunism.
>>
>>Yes, we have some expert examples to follow here among you so-called
>>"scientists".
> 
>   Whoops, there it is: stage 5.  And he was even warned.  All that is left is
> Stage 6a (Holdenism) or 6b (Baleism) where he is either impervious to any form
> of logic, or dissapears for a while in hopes we will forget his errors.

   Not bad; he managed to skip stage 4, Anttiism, rejecting logic
while still claiming to be knowledgeable about evolution.

Karl
------
"Find a great ideal, a great purpose, marry it, and raise a family."
					 --Negativland, "U2"
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: amorgan@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Crunchy Frog)
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 19:43:35 GMT

In article <4q58TB10w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
>
>Right, evidence. Then show us a species changing into another species.

I take it from this remark you believe that speciation has never occurred?

>Show us amoebas being formed from molecules. Go ahead, show us the
>evidence!

Look, experiments have been done involving zapping what we think it
primordial air with electricity.  Complex molecules have been formed.
It is true that at the end of these experiments nothing has climbed
out of the flask belching "I live, I live" but I would be much more
worried if that *had* happened.  You see, by the current theories of
abiogenesis it takes a long time on a test tube the size of the Earth.
We can't do it in a petri dish over the weekend, big deal.

One more thing.  Several times people have said "If I take X and do Y
to it randomly I get the effect you want" and you complain that since
there is an intelligence controlling the whole thing it isn't the
same as 'nature' doing it.  I take it from this that there is no
conceivable experiment that we can do that you will accept.
 
>Kalki "so the computer built itself, right" Dasa

C Frog
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: arandia@panix.com (Joel Arandia)
Subject: thanks!
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 02:48:12 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC

I just want to say thanks to all the people who sent me mail.  You've helped me
a lot and I guess I have a bit of reading to do.
						Joel D. Arandia