HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: onar@hsr.no (Onar Aam)
Subject: Re: Object-oriented creation (Was Re: Creationist CRAPOLA!)
Organization: Rogaland University Centre
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 11:35:20 GMT

>>Not only does DNA-dating increase the integrity of the existing dating techniques,
>>it supports and CONFIRMS the theory of evolution even further. 
>
>Well, I appreciate your conviction.  But "confirmation" is a bit strong.
>
>I mean, consider for a moment: If you were the Creator, and you were about
>to create life, what techniques would you use to put order and simplicity
>into the task?  Object-oriented techniques!
>
>What are object-oriented techniques?  They are a philosophy and approach to
>computer programming that promote code re-use.  And computer programs are
>not unlike DNA programs.
>
>In fact, object oriented programming makes reusing code easier than *not*
>reusing code.  So extending this to its natural conclusion, I would expect
>the process of creating life to be a more simple and orderly process by
>reusing DNA rather than not.
>
>So while at first sight it may seem astounding that chimps and humans have
>99% similarity in their DNA, I would be surprised if that were *not* the
>case, considering the similarity of the overall "systems".  Assuming, of
>course, that object oriented techniques were applied in their creation.
>
>While my analogy may seem only tangentially relevant to those who are not
>personally experienced with object oriented programming, those who *have*
>used those techniques will surely see the applicability of the analogy to
>the discussion of "How could chimp/human DNA be 99% alike?"
>
>There is, after all, a high degree of similarity between DNA programs
>and computer programs.
>--------------------------------------------
>Ken Richardson		SyCraft Software


How respectless of you! Do you really believe that our simple technology and
understanding could compare to that of the Creator? 200 years ago windmills was
the most advanced invention of man, and we used this as an analogy of how the
brain works. And now, close to the 21. century, we claim of knowing what
techniques God used in the Creation! I say, had this reply been written in 1975,
surely BASIC's spaghetti-coding would have been a good analogy. If you are to be
a creationist then stick to God's supremecy. What you just did was making gods
out of humans, and that's blasphemy. Shame on you!


Besides,  DNA programs and computer programs are just as similar as a Cray-II and
a Casio pocket calculator are to each other!


Onar.


 

Onar.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Faith
From: kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu
Date: 26 Sep 92 16:38:38 EDT
Organization: Wesleyan University

In article <1a0of0INN3u7@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, jmm25@po.CWRU.Edu (Jessica M. Mcgeary) writes:
> 
> [stuff about Velikovsky deleted]

   Hey, if you think that's funny you should come by talk.origins and chat
with Ted Holden; he's an ardent follower of Velikovsky and believes the
Earth used to oribit Saturn (which, of course, allowed for lower gravity so
that the dinosaurs could be so big).  He just posted a compilation of his 
whole theory a few days ago...interesting stuff :-)

Karl
------
"Well if we took the bones out it wouldn't be crunchy, would it?"
From: David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: anal-oriented Creation
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Oct  1 1992
Date: 02 Oct 92  15:58:00

Previous article:
 
> "I _am_ familiar with OOPS and and I'm afraid your argument
> does not address the point--in an OOP environment 'junk' DNA
> would be similar no matter what the relatedness of the
> organisms in question, if there was junk at all (not very
> good design, IMHO). The fact that junk DNA exists and is more
> similar in closely related species than in randomly chosen or
> distantly related species is a prediction of evolutionary theory
> very nicely confirmed by observation, and is difficult to account
> for in teleological systems like special creation."
 
I must say that this talk or Object-Oriented Creationism is =MUCH=
more fun to read than the usual ANAL-Oriented Creationism we
usually get.
 
Though DNA still looks more BASICA to me than OOPS. Patches
and kludges, missing code (why can mammals no longer regrow
missing body parts, while some reptiles and sea creatures can?),
code never called---- sounds like The Creator never got beyond
junior highschool, and He learned "programming" on a PDP/8. Why
is there this object / subroutine for an apendix---- who ordered
that?

--- Maximus 2.00
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 21:56:47 EDT
From: John A. Johnson <J5J@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Does God Like Blood?

In article <s9VJRB8w165w@mantis.co.uk>, mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew) says:
>
>jmm25@po.CWRU.Edu (Jessica M. Mcgeary) writes:
>> I'm a Roman Catholic-
>>
>> (duck, wait for the hisses and boos and thrown objects to subside)
>>
>> And I'd just like to say that ANYONE who claims to be committing a crime
>> because they believe God or Jesus told them to do it NEEDS PROFESSIONAL
>HELP.
>
>What about those who claim to commit some other action because they believe
>God or Jesus told them to do it?  Do they need professional help too?

In my professional opinion, yes.

>If
>not, how does one determine which orders are indicative of God talking, and
>which are indicative of mental imbalance?

mathew's question is purposely rhetorical, for there is no way to tell
the difference.
---------------------------
John A. Johnson, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Psychology
Staking his professional reputation on this one.
This view does not necessarily represent the official view of Penn State.
From: David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Test For Christians
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Sep 21 1992
Date: 28 Sep 92  09:38:10

Tag: Jessica M. Mcgeary (jmm25@po.CWRU.Edu (Jessica M. Mcgeary))
 
JMM> "You forgot. Christians are also supposed to be able to
JMM> handle venomous serpents without being bitten. (Duh! You
JMM> keep 'em chilled for about 4 hours, then hold them directly
JMM> behind the head!) And if they're bitten, they (the
JMM> Christians) are supposed to survive. -- Jessica McGeary
JMM> jmm25@po.cwru.edu Case Western Reserve University Remember!
JMM> Arguments should be FUN!"
 
What happens if the snake bites the Christian and the snake dies?
Does anyone care? That's being cruel to animals.
 
I have a text file hereabouts concerning a Christian church that
includes "snake handling" in its rituals. The leader fought long
and hard against the American Government for the right to continue
to include deadly snakes in their church's rituals. He won the
right to continue pending proof that their rituals were dangerous.
 
Alas, he died from snake bite.
 
I'll find the file and post it.

--- Maximus 2.00
From: pjm@cshl.org (Pat Monardo)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Atheism uber alles?
Date: 30 Sep 92 17:40:26 GMT
Organization: Cold Spring Harbor Labs

In article <1992Sep29.193104.18644@awdprime.austin.ibm.com> jack@auntbea.austin.ibm.com (John Stump) writes:
>(Maybe this should be in talk.origins, but I can only subscribe to so many
> news groups)
>
>Man has always questioned his origins. Almost all children, when they first
>learn how to form sentences, ask, "Mommy, where did I come from?" It is that
>extra level of intelligence that humans have that allow us to first: 
>	realize that we exist, 
>and then second: 
>	ask why and from where did we come from.
>

another interesting question: why do i think and do what i do?
some religions, such as Buddhism, try to answer this question
with some interesting results, from personal experiences.
the problem with many religions is that they try to answer
the "where did i come from?" question and ignore the more practical questions.

-- 
-- Pat Monardo
-- pjm@cshl.org
From: mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Does God Like Blood?
Date: 23 Sep 92 10:56:27 GMT
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

jmm25@po.CWRU.Edu (Jessica M. Mcgeary) writes:
> I'm a Roman Catholic-
> 
> (duck, wait for the hisses and boos and thrown objects to subside)
> 
> And I'd just like to say that ANYONE who claims to be committing a crime
> because they believe God or Jesus told them to do it NEEDS PROFESSIONAL HELP.

What about those who claim to commit some other action because they believe
God or Jesus told them to do it?  Do they need professional help too?  If
not, how does one determine which orders are indicative of God talking, and
which are indicative of mental imbalance?

> towards ANYONE than, say, the crimes of the Son of Sam. The person who
> believes that they are doing honor to Jesus and good to their children by
> behaving in the manner described- locking them in the bathroom with
> crucifixes, poking out their eyes, etc.- is SICK. They are NOT acting in a
> Christian manner.

But a little suffering now will prevent the child from burning in hell for
eternity!  Surely it's worth poking his eyes out to stop him going to hell?


mathew
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:18059 talk.origins:12071
From: mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.origins
Subject: Re: School discipline (was Re: worthless comic strips)
Date: 27 Sep 92 10:45:49 GMT
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

D.J.Butcher@newcastle.ac.uk (Dave Butcher) writes:
> The muder rate in the UK is significantly lower than that in the US.  Of
> course the christian church is rather intrinsically wound up in the state
> but the level of church attendance is (I recall, I could be wrong) a great
> deal less than in the US.  And it hasn't done Hellfire and Brimstone 
> performances for a long time.

Of course, the fact that in the UK people don't walk around with guns is
nothing to do with it...


mathew
From: x@beyond.one's.understanding (The Messiah)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: THE LORD IS UPON ME!
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 12:18:55 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.22.255.189

In article <1992Oct5.172153.1@vx24.cc.monash.edu.au> edc513ysft@vx24.cc.monash.edu.au writes:

>YOU MIGHT THINK THIS IS STUPID BUT I AM THE SON OF GOD!
>I HAVE POWERS ATTRACT ALL THE WOMEN ON THE DANCEFLOOR.
>THIS IS PROOF ENOUGH THAT I AM AND SHALL BE THE ALL CONQUERING
>STUD THAT I AM!
>

	False prophet! 
	
	God's son does not suffer from male pattern baldness. 

>P.S.  GOD EXISTS.  I SEE HIM IN MY DREAMS AND HE TALKS TO ME.
>      HE TELLS ME ABOUT LIFE, THE UNIVERSE AND HOW TO PICK UP
>      PRETTY YOUNG BLONDES.

	Blasphemer!

	She endows her daughters to attract the males.


>Mr Baldy
^^^^^^^^^
From: MVS104@psuvm.psu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: missing the point
Date: 27 Sep 92 14:32:03 GMT
Organization: Penn State University

In article <890707p.22.717522130@ace.acadiau.ca>, 890707p@ace.acadiau.ca (GLENN
G. PARSONS) says:
>
>when we mire ourselves down in insipid arguments over things which are
>really totally dependent upon personal opinion, and which are of no
>significance to spiritualistic living in the first place, we are throwing
>around us Blake's "chains of the soul."

Well, the only problem here is of opinions. Ususally, people bring
'evidence' in which is eventually shown without a doubt to rest on
faith, or personal opinion, at which point the original poster is
throttled about the ears and face. But they always try to make it
seem so non-opnionated that it has to be argued about until it's
obvious that it is...major network time killer.

>                                        A detractor  of the merits of
>                                              organized religon.

Martin Schulte
From: bluelobster+@CMU.EDU (David O Hunt)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: `And yet it moves' (Was Re: Christianity is Stupid)
Date: 1 Oct 92 16:23:10 GMT
 <10448@vice.ICO.TEK.COM> <1992Sep29.155452.24931@twisto.eng.hou.compaq.com><1992Sep30.220635.16876@athena.mit.edu>
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA


 lking@athena.mit.edu (Loren King) writes:
> Yes, in fact he was forced to recant twice.  Another now-funny-
>but-still-disturbing story tells of the theologians who refused
>to look through Galileo's telescope at the moons of Jupiter.
 > They insisted that there was no need to look, since they would not
>see anything that Aristotle (via the corrupt interpretations of Thomas
>Aquinas) hadn't written about almost a thousand years before.  If there
>was something there, they concluded, then it was mere trickery on
>Galileo's part.

Yes, but those of us who are skeptical today don't refuse to look.  All
we ask for is _proof_, according to some standards that rule out trickery.

It isn't up to science to _disprove_ anything - it's up to the claimant to
prove.  And if you want to be taken seriously, you have to do it
scientifically.

For example:  There have been cases of persons who claim to be
telekinetic.  If they truly are, why can't they move a magnetically-
suspended needle in a vacuum chamber.  There's NO friction to
stop any motion...any force WILL show up.  WHERE'S THE BEEF?


David Hunt - Graduate Slave |     My mind is my own.      | Towards both a
Mechanical Engineering      | So are my ideas & opinions. | Palestinian and
Carnegie Mellon University  | <<<Use Golden Rule v2.0>>>  | Jewish homeland!
====T=H=E=R=E===I=S===N=O===G=O=D=========T=H=E=R=E===I=S===N=O===G=O=D=====
Email:  bluelobster+@cmu.edu    Working towards my "Piled Higher and Deeper"

"Out there is a fortune waiting to be had; do you think I'd let it go you're
mad - you got another think coming!" -- Judas Priest
From: David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Killing For God
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Oct  1 1992
Date: 02 Oct 92  15:56:06

In article <1992Sep28.203710.16160@scic.intel.com>
donita@scic.intel.com (Donita Thompson) writes:
 
> "This message is for David Rice. Someone said if I came here to
> alt.atheism, there was a really great long article about all
> the biblical killings in the bible -- a MUST for when xtians come
> to the door wanting to expound their bullshit on one. I searched
> over 541 articles. David, can you send it to me? Or repost?"
 
Hi. I did not post said article, though Mr. Merrit did, and it
looks like a good job.
 
My concern is not biblical killings, but present-day killings:
mostly of children and elderly. I am powerless to stop it, of
course, and my articles posted under "Religion & Crime" I'm
quite sure will have damn little effect--- one can still hope.

--- Maximus 2.00
From: joeb@pdnfido.fidonet.org (Joe Beiter)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Test For True Christians
Date: 28 Sep 92 22:30:37 GMT
Organization: The Source for Source Pub Access Unix

>>You forgot. Christians are also supposed to be able to handle venomous
>>serpents without being bitten. (Duh! You keep 'em chilled for about 4 hours,
>>then hold them directly behind the head!) And if they're bitten, they (the
>>Christians) are supposed to survive.
>
>  I have often asked christians to demonstrate this to me ( drinking poison
>, handling snakes ) and I have yet to have one take me up on the offer.
>I wonder why? :) . Mabye they have weak faith?

For the sake of the gullible I'll lower myself to respond to this.  The passage
that proclaimed this was not ment for people to 'test their faith'.  It was
a prophecy of what would happen.  Paul, when ship wrecked, was bitten by a 
poisonous viper but did not die as expected and did not even get sick.

If someone intentionally handles a poisonous snake and gets bitten and dies 
(which I belive very rarely happens anyway) or gets sick, its not because they
didn't have faith but because they were stupid.

- JoeB


-- 
-=@=-=@=-=@=-=@=-::
- JoeB           Joe.Beiter@HauppaugeNY.NCR.COM
                 joeb@pdnfido.fidonet.org
-=@=-=@=-=@=-=@=-::
From: bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Proof that Colleen is not the One True God!
Keywords: COLLEEN IS NOT GOD
Date: 26 Sep 92 17:29:53 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <willimsa.717434566@unix1.tcd.ie> willimsa@unix1.tcd.ie (Gavin Williams) writes:
>
>Gee guys, you're spoiling all the fun!!!  Can't we just have one *little*
>*tiny* jihad, after all the heretics might confuse others with their 
>pollutative thoughts!
>
>Just a *little* one?
>

  Yeah, but then we'd have to call it a "surgical military strike"
  or a "benevolent police action".  It turns out that these are not
  nearly as much fun as a full blown, god backed, heaven funded
  jihad.

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ 

Bob Beauchaine bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM 

"If I have to resurrect you, I'll resurrect you, whether you like it
or not!"
	 Paul to Jesus, _The_Last_Temptation_of_Christ_

"Above all, a god needs compassion"    James T. Kirk
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: x@beyond.one's.understanding (The Messiah)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: The Lord Cometh!
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 12:14:45 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.22.255.189

In article <1992Oct5.005842.13295@netcom.com> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:

>You mean Colleen's coming back?!  Hurrah!  :)

	Unbeliever!

	Thou shall repent thy sins, or suffer eternal pain!
	You have six days!
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:18007 sci.skeptic:16988 talk.origins:12011
From: dsg@impmh.uucp (Dave Gordon)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.messianic,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Creationist CRAPOLA!
Date: 24 Sep 92 12:57:11 GMT
Organization: Integrated Micro Products Ltd

In article <1992Sep23.175321.16185@HQ.Ileaf.COM>, dirish@HQ.Ileaf.COM (David Irish) writes in part:
>
> there is absolutely ZERO evidence that evolution happened.

Actually, we can *OBSERVE* evolution in action; it doesn't always take
millions of years.  A few examples:

- when the use of rat poisons became widespread, rats evolved which were
resistant to those particular poisons.  This took only a few (10-20) years.

- one species of moth evolved two different forms in different parts of
England after the industrial revolution; a light coloured form in the
South, and a darker form in the North.  This made it better able to
camoflage itself against the bark of trees (industrial North -> more
soot -> darker tree bark).

- biologists often observe the evolution of new varieties of (e.g.)
fruit flies.  With only a few days per generation, new mutations can
quickly spread through a population if they confer some advantage.
-- 

			Dave
===============================================================================
You are in a maze of little twisty standards, all different
===============================================================================
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: kruegek@stein.u.washington.edu (Kirby Krueger)
Subject: Re: GOD is EXISTENCE
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 20:45:47 GMT

In article <1992Oct3.090132.7052@cs.ucla.edu> robert@oahu.cs.ucla.edu (Rob Karmolinski) writes:
>There have been many definitions of God bounced around the net and
>elsewhere, e.g., God is LOVE, God is EXISTENCE, God is the one true
>sepreme powerful being, etc, etc.  Let us regress to the *original*
>definition of God:  God is *the* Creator of the Universe.  By doing
>this, I will hopefully put an end to all of the philosophical
>discussions concerning the existence of God, by proving once and for
>all that God does in fact exist:
>
>	1:  God created the Universe.	(by definition)
>	2:  The Universe exists.	(by inspection)
>	3:  Assume God does *not* exist.
>	    4:  Then, the Universe was never created.	(by #1)
>	    5:  Then, the Universe does not exist.	(by #4)
>	6:  God *does* exist.		(by contradiction, #3, #2, #5)
>
>Whew!  Now that I've done that, it is trivial to show that God did in
>fact write the bible, and everything in it is true.  I leave this as
>an exercise for the readers, for I am tired now.  (Here's a helpful
>hint to get you started:  God wouldn't lie about a thing like that,
>would He??)  And to think, I used to be an atheist.
>
>--
>Theistically yours,
>
>Rob

Such logic!  I assume that most readers can see the fundamental flaws in
this argument.  Take a parallel argument.  Say, for example, the existence
of cupid, cupid being defined as the cause of people falling in love, and
the only cause. (This is similar to the claim that god is defined as the
creator of the universe in the above example.)

Therefore, 1. Cupid causes people to fall in love. (by definition) 
           2. Love exists. (By inspection)
           3. Assume cupid does not exist.
               4. Thus, people do not fall in love.
               5. Love does not exist.
           6. Thus, Cupid exists!

Pretty horrendous logic, isn't it?  Even assuming that the first example has
some validity, then the god that exists is the cause of the universe, not
necessarily anything more.  So the big bang might be it's god.  The next     
paragraph does not follow at all, about this proving the bible.  All it
proves is that the universe came into being (which I'm willing to accept),
and names the cause as god.  Which basically accomplishes nothing, since
the god that is not believed in by atheists usually is a bit more -- I don't
know any atheists that claim that the universe did not happen.
From: lizi@ocf.berkeley.edu (Cosma R. Shalizi)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: GOD is EXISTENCE
Date: 1 Oct 1992 00:34:52 GMT
Organization: Vampire Research Group at Berkeley :)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hailstorm.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Sep25.154002.1@tnclus.tele.nokia.fi> hporopudas@tnclus.tele.nokia.fi writes:
> Hi !
> If God is 'Existence' as is defined in the Holy Bible
> (in 2nd Moses 3:14-15 and in gospel of Johannes 8:28-29),
> then who dares to assert that God does not exist. ?
>         Hannu.

   There are three responses to this line of argument - never mind the
nit-picks about your translation, which reeks of 20th century theologians
tempering with the text.

1. I do. (You did ask _who_, Hannu.)

2. If God is "blueness," as defined in the Third Book of Navel-Lint in the
   Scriptures of the Holy if Indiferent N'guk, who dares to assert that
   God does not exist?

3. Reasoning from a sudden and violent solecism is NOT VALID. You want to
   claim that "God" means existence; and perhaps, out of boredom, we could
   go along with you. You also want to claim that "God" means "The creator
   and ruler of the universe, who did this this and this <insert summary from
   Bible here>." Call these two senses "God-1" and "God-2." Your definition
   of God-1 does not, as far as I can see, give a reason to accept its
   identity with God-2.
   To illustrate: My name is Cosma. My account's name is lizi. Some of my
   friends call me lizi. Does this mean that I am a certain set of files on
   a hard disk? Obviously not. (Of course, I could be a certain set of files
   on a hard disk, and not know it, but the names don't give me any reason
   to believe this.)

   	Cosma Rohilla Shalizi
	In Real Life: lizi@ocf.berkeley.edu
	larval physicist
	VP, Campus Crusade for Cthulhu (Berkeley)
-- 
"Some savages are persuaded by the 'natural light' that it is their duty to
 eat people, and even Voltaire's savages, who are led by the voice of reason
 to hold that one should only eat Jesuits, are not wholly satisfactory."
-Bertrand Russell on Rousseau in _A History of Western Philosophy_, p. 694
Newsgroups: alt.atheism