HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: seanna@bnr.ca (Seanna Watson)
Subject: Re: Some answers for Chuck (on evolution and marriage)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 17:53:02 GMT


I wrote:
>>I find your marriage argument somewhat strange, however.  Many men of God 
>>in the OT violated one man/one woman for life--Abraham, Jacob, Solomon to
>>name a few.  

Chuck Maier wrote:
>Yes, and their lives were a mess because they did so.  Look at the strife
>and contention...

Well yes, that is my point--if these men of God with lousy marriages
don't invalidate Christian marriage (and I agree with you that they
do not), then why bring up Adam's marriage?  Adam's monogamy was 
certainly no virtue if there were no other women around anyway.

>I'm still waiting for a statement of the natural context which brought forth
>the first human beings followed by a juxtaposition of this statement with
>revelant statements from the Bible.  Development of the doctrine of marriage
>etc. from an evolutionary perspective would be most interesting.

Perhaps some atheists would like to draw moral conclusions from evolutionary
evidence; certainly we have seen examples of this.  But there is *NO* reason
why a Christian would do this.   It's OK for a Christian to accept evolution
as a scientific explanation of origins *BECAUSE* it is science, and independent
of religion or morality.  It would be wrong for a Christian to draw moral 
conclusions or doctrines from evolutionary biology, just as it would be wrong
to draw moral conclusions from astronomy or mathematics.

-- 
Seanna Watson   Bell-Northern Research, 
(seanna@bnr.ca) Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Opinions, what opinions?  Oh *these* opinions. | Occam's razor split 
No, they're not BNR's, they're mine.           | hairs so well, I bought 
I knew I'd left them somewhere.                | the whole argument.


Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard)
Subject: Re: Calling Young-earth Creationists
Organization: The Turing Project, Charlottesville Virginia.
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 01:53:03 GMT

In article <BryLrs.Bus@news.cso.uiuc.edu> cmaier@uiuc.edu writes:
>The best line of evidence is simply the fact that there is no physical evidence of
>human existence prior to the time of the Floood.  

Its hard to find evidence for things that happened before non existant
events :-)
Try giving a specific date..

>That is , of course, if you
>discount the vivid tales and a coffin full of mouldy ape teeth that 
>paleoanthropologists would have us believe mean something.

Apes that build coffins looks like an intermidiate species to me ;-)

>Hopefully, they will soon make their materials available on diskette so we
>in the newsgroups can 'Flood' the world with this important information.

Like they say garbage in garbage out :-)
-- 
>>Unix/C Contract worker available 5 years C/unix work experience<<  ______
Available for Telecommuting/Travel and contracts on the T Line       \    /
in the Boston MA area. Send me e-mail for a copy of my Resume.        \  /
       -- VWIS 508-793-9568 (2400 baud), Linux support BBS.--          \/
Newsgroups: talk.origins,sci.astro
From: david@physics.unc.edu (David R. DeGraff)
Subject: Re: Elements for Life was Re: stars & carbon
Organization: Dept. of Physics and Astronomy, Univ. North. Carolina at Chapel Hill
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 21:06:16 GMT

>|In article <salem.711858513@pangea.Stanford.EDU> salem@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Bruce Salem) writes:
>|>The discussion about heavy element ("Metals" >He) production
>|>and dispersion into the intersteller medium reminds me that
>|>life, as we know it, consists primarily of the commonist
>|>elements in the universe, not the rarest. If life were
>|>so special, then why would it not rely on Gold, or some
>|>other rare element, not Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen, Nitrogen,
>|>and other common elements lighter than Iron? I think that
>|>the reason is clear, life is not special, it evolved from
>|>the properties of substances here in abundance.
>|
       nash@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (David Nash) writes:
>|I dunno.  I agree about the properties being important, but it seems a bit
>|odd to say that life "isn't special," seeing as how it took over a billion
>|years for it to even get started on Earth,
>
    <salem.711858513@pangea.Stanford.EDU> salem@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Bruce Salem) writes:
>|>What properties would allow other elements to form the
>|>basis for life under different circumstances. The Sci
>|>Fi writers like to chide us for our "Carbon Bias", but
>|
            nash@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (David Nash) writes:
>|What properties, hmmm?  Most properties people usually associate with "life"
>|are truly exemplified by carbon. Carbon is the ONLY element that you can use
>|to make molecules as complicated as DNA and proteins.  Carbon has three
>|redeeming features:  a) it readily forms strong bonds to other carbon atoms, 
>|b) a wide range of other atoms (e.g., H, O, N, Cl, S) bond readily to it,  
>|and c)it generally forms four bonds to other atoms, whereas many common atoms 
>|-- H, N, O, for instance -- usually form only one to three. ...
>
      swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen) writes:
>You forgot e) is able to form double bonds.
>
>That is the main thing that distinguishes it from silicon.  (Silicon is
>the next element down in the same column of the periodic table, so it has
>many of the same chemical properties as carbon, particularly b) and c)).

Even with Earth as our only example of life, we can rule out
silicon based life forms.  The Earth has more Silicon than 
carbon in it, yet silicon life never devoloped.  What
prevented it?  All the silicon got bound to oxygen, and was 
used up making Quartz.

That makes silicon life extreamly unlikely.

-- 
David DeGraff                               david@sloth.astro.unc.edu
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Almost Ph(inishe)D
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: Scientific Method
Organization: Mitre Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 18:55:08 GMT

In article <Bs26H3.GtE@news.cso.uiuc.edu> cmaier@uiuc.edu writes:
}In <1992Jul27.124651.27652@linus.mitre.org> jmeritt@rod.mitre.org (Jim Meritt) writes:
}
}>IAW Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary (didn't want to get esoteric!):
}
}>scientific method - principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of
}>knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the
}>collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation
}>and testing of hypothesis.
}
}>        If yes:
}>                What data has been collected in support of creationism.
}>                What observations support creationism?
}
}"The heavens declare the glory of God and the earth sheweth forth his
}handiwork."

So what does this have to do with supporting creationism?

}"...HIs invisible attributes...his divine nature, his eternal power...
}being understood through that which has been made."
 
So what does this have to do with supporting creationism?

}A look out the window by any sane inidividual with reasonable eyesight
}would qualify as a legitimate observation.

So what does this have to do with supporting creationism?
 
}>                What experiments have been conducted (especially, what
}>                        experiments have been done, or are possible,
}>                        that can _FALSIFY_ creationism?
}
}Have functional complexity arise without adding intelligence. 

That can falsify creationism?  Please elaborate.

}>                What hypothesis has been formulated and how can it/they
}>                be tested?
}
}Molecular biologists might do more work in actually proving (i.e. via
}directed mutagenesis) that it is possible for molecules to evolve through
}genetic mistakes, occurring by pure chance.  Creationists hypothesize that
                                ^^^^^^^^^^^
				I've never seen this.  Put up.
Now, I've seen "impure" change (environmental criteria, selective processes)
}this is not possible for the same reason my note won't change into an 
}pro-evolution diatribe by dancing my hands over the keys in subsequent
}editions and followups to the note.
From: kachun@astro.as.arizona.edu (Ka Chun Yu)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Calling Young-earth Creationists
Date: 26 Jul 92 21:36:32 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ

In article <BryLrs.Bus@news.cso.uiuc.edu> cmaier@uiuc.edu writes:
>In <1992Jul23.115606.202088@uctvax.uct.ac.za> fllant01@uctvax.uct.ac.za writes:
>
>>As a born-again Christian, I subscribe to the theory of a young earth
>> (6000 to 10000 years old).
>
>>Does anyone have scientific evidence to support this?
>>(Stuff on dating methods, dynamic vs. atomic time, etc.)
>>Please e-mail or post.
>
>>Thanks in advance,
>>Anthony Faull.
>
>Your best source for info would be:
>
>The Institute for Creation Research
>P.O. Box 2667
>El Cajon, CA 92091
>
>I have most of their materials and have participated in most of their activities
>over the past several years.  They are an effective and dedicated group of 
>Christian scientists (and are thus constantly besmirched by the denizens of
>this newsgroup) who publish on the scientific evidence for a young earth and
>flood geology and immutability of created biological prototypes.
>
>The best line of evidence is simply the fact that there is no physical evidence of
>human existence prior to the time of the Floood.  That is , of course, if you

Of course there's no evidence of the Flood in the first place.  And even if
what you said were true, why would it support creationist claims?

>discount the vivid tales and a coffin full of mouldy ape teeth that 
>paleoanthropologists would have us believe mean something.
>

Is that all there is?  Just a coffin full of teeth?

>Hopefully, they will soon make their materials available on diskette so we
>in the newsgroups can 'Flood' the world with this important information.
>
>chuck


--
*Ka Chun Yu                 * "Deputy dog dog a ding dang depa depa deputy     *
*kachun@as.arizona.edu      *  dog dog a ding dang depa depa . . ."            *
*                           *                         --"Don't Let's Start"    *
From: David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Brains
X-Sender: newtout 0.01 Jul 13 1992
Date: 30 Jul 92  14:26:10

Tag: Thomas Erlebach
 
> erlebach@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE (Thomas Erlebach)
 
TE> "When I was younger I thought that human thinking
TE> was completely different from the way that machines
TE> (esp. computers) work. Meanwhile, after reading books
TE> about psychology, learning lots of stuff about computers
TE> and doing some thinking during boring train rides, my
TE> opinion has changed. I see the human brain as a kind
TE> of 'biological computer,' receiving input, processing
TE> the information and providing output. And I don't think
TE> that there is any kind of supernatural entity within the
TE> human body like a soul or something like that."
 
The human brain is nothing like a computer. Or better stated,
a computer is not like a brain.
 
The human brain can concieve abstractly, creating non-existant
beings such as Santa Claus, God, Jesus, Tooth Fairy; and the
human brain can assign arbitrary value to concepts such as "good"
and "evil," etc., but a computer would have to be specifically
told every thing it knows. Abstraction is difficult for a computer,
though perhaps one day a computer can "imagine" by using
randomizing algorhythyms.
 
When the human brain receives input, a billion biases go to
work on it: social, educational, delusional, wishful; the data
that comes out may contradict reality (such as Ted Holden's many
delusions)--- a computer that does this would be considered broken
and sent for repair, while a human that does this is called a mystic,
philospher, poet, or theist (depending on content and fortitude
behind the delusions), and sometimes, worse yet, a genius.
 
I do not "see" computers eventually learning to "think," any
more than I can see a slide-rule "thinking." The former is just
a much faster version of the latter.

--- Squish v1.01
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phillip M. Hallam-Baker)
Subject: Re: Is creationism science?
Reply-To: hallam@zeus02.desy.de
Organization: DESY ZEUS Central Data Acquisition
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 20:05:54 GMT

In article <84479@netnews.upenn.edu>, weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu
(Matthew P Wiener) writes:
|>In article <1992Jul27.120022.11641@st-andrews.ac.uk>, mrl@st-andrews (
|>Michael Ladomery) writes:
|>>>			     Laudan and Quinn both take what is perhaps
|>>>the majority view among philosophers of science, that there is no
|>>>well-founded criterion for distinguishing science from
|>pseudoscience
|>>>(followers of Karl Popper disagree).
|>
|>>Perhaps philosophers take the view that there is no clear
|>*demarcation*
|>>or *boundary* between science and pseudo-science; but surely
|>*pseudo-science*
|>>exists as such: would you agree that astrology is a pseudo-science?
|>
|>Your clarification is mostly correct.  Only Feyeraband and his more
|>rabid
|>fans would go so far as to eradicate all such distinctions.
|>
|>But trying to pin down "what is science?" to Popperian falsifiability
|>or
|>Bayesian optimization or other such program--on the one side is REAL
|>SCIENCE, and on the other side is GENUINE NONSENSE--this has not been
|>a success, and that is what Jim Lippard was referring to.

But that dosen't stop `Creation Science' being as much garbage as Astrology. 

The point is that there can be no way that any procedure which rejects
evidence purely because it disagrees with a theory can be science. It is
arguable that a theory that can have no predicitve power can be science,
however anyone claiming that to replace a theory in accord with the
facts and with predicitve power with one that disagrees and has no
predicitive power is fooling themselves if they try to pass it off as
science.


Phill Hallam-Baker
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: henley@eng.auburn.edu (James Paul Henley)
Subject: Re: blah, blah, blah (was: Re: Blah Blah)
Organization: Auburn University Engineering
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 16:43:35 GMT

In article <92162@bu.edu> colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby) writes:
>In article <henley.920728104731@wilbur.eng.auburn.edu> henley@eng.auburn.edu (James Paul Henley) writes:
>>In article <n05fat@ofa123.fidonet.org> David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org writes:
>
>
>	Um, what is the point here? Mr. Rice was correct
>in asserting that evolution isn't random. Evolution is a change in the
>gene pool over time. One of the mechanisms that causes evolution is
>natural selection. Natural selection is differential reproductive
>success of genotypes and it occurs when fitness differences exist in
>a gene pool. This is non-random.
>
>	Also, the Mr. Rice was correct in saying a force is
>not applied. Force equals mass times acceleration if my college
>physics text isn't lying to me. There is no mass to a gene pool
>and it is not accelerated. (I'm not what he meant by evolution
>being chaotic, but that doesn't seem to be an issue here.)

In thermodynamics,

change = work
capacity to change = energy
resistance to change = resistance
force = driving force,  which is usually a balance between two opposing
   forces.

If there is no driving force, then no changes can occur at the macroscopic
level.  That's called equilibrium.

If we can get past the definition stage, a lot of this will start to
make sense.  You are only talking about mechanical force.  There are
lots of other types of forces.  In the absence of force, there is
nothing that can cause a change.  Thermodynamics deals with driving
forces such as:

Electrical  (difference in electric potentials)
Pressure    (difference in pressure)
Chemical    (difference in Gibbs free energies, called chemical potential)
Gravity     (difference in gravitational fields)
Magnetic    (difference in magnetic fields) 
Temperature (difference in temperatures AKA temperature gradients)

Every one of these forces can do work.  It is only mechanical work that
is measured in physical displacement.


>	So again, what's the point? Also, do you really think
>that your posting of a huge thermo FAQ is going to make anyone
>forget that you still have not addressed a load of data dealing
>with common descent?

I have also not addressed a load of data on a zillion other topics.  One
thing at a time.  Some aspects of common descent I am beginning to
understand from a multicomponent thermodynamics aspect.  I'm sure you
wouldn't mind if I gave you thermodynamic proof of common descent, now
would you?

>
>>James P. Henley Jr.
>
>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"
>

James P. Henley Jr.
Chemical Engineering Dept.
Auburn University
From: news@fedfil.UUCP (news)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Anniversary with Ted (& Holden "felt effect" followup)
Date: 23 Jul 92 16:06:04 GMT
Organization: HTE

In article <1992Jul21.211804.1715@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>, kachun@astro.as.arizona.edu (Ka Chun Yu) writes:
 
> I've just celebrated my first Holdenniversary.  Let's hear from others who've
> been at this even longer.  Any people out there who've been through this five,
> ten, or even twenty times?

Don't stop at 20 or 30.  You can COUNT on seeing this stuff at repeated 
intervals as long as usenet exists.   

Again, this is not for the majority on t.o;  it's for the intelligent minority,
which DOES exist.




-- 
Ted Holden
HTE
From: news@fedfil.UUCP (news)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: oh rah...
Date: 29 Jul 92 19:58:37 GMT
Organization: HTE

In article <1992Jul27.155010.3311@linus.mitre.org>, m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
 
> Tell you what.  I'll see your KJV, and raise you a ASCII Koran, Book of
> Mormon, Pearls of Great Price, and Doctrine & Covenants.  And throw in the
> talk.origins FAQ, evaluations of McDowell's joke, and a few k of the
> contradictions of the KJV, places where Yahweh directs or implements killing,
> and a few other things.
> Isn't it about time for your homophobic physical threats?  Is McLean
> easier for you to find?

Here's the problem.  Most t.o readers don't have access to the various 
binaries groups, and there's a further problem in that an article posted
to one of them often takes a good deal longer to get out than the message
on another group such as t.o which would tell anybody to expect it.

You thus wouldn't think that posting a small image file which had obvious
pertinance to t.o, once in a very rare while, on t.o, would cause anybody
any heartache.  

However, I did that once, and Bishop actually did email the posting back to 
me in what I regard as a singularly mean-spirited act, and a deliberate
effort to cause me problems with fed filings, the sysadmin of which, by
the way is a personal friend.

As to any other threats you might have in mind, I have long since revised
my entire opinion on the subject of your own personal use of the word 
"liar".

I would, at this point, PREFER having you call me a liar;  having a flagrant
and proven liar such as yourself call me an honest man would be entirely
too much like one of Marilyn Vos Savant's Mensa puzzles...  the average
reader of t.o would not know how to interpret that.

Now, if that causes YOU any perticular heartburn, then McLean is certainly
close enough, just indicate when.



-- 
Ted Holden
HTE

Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: The Woman Deceived (was ? for SW)
Organization: LLNL
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 19:21:58 GMT

In article <henley.920724100148@wilbur.eng.auburn.edu> henley@eng.auburn.edu (James Paul Henley) writes:
>In article <1992Jul24.005742.21919@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
::
::	Interestingly enough, the part that states that men should
::treat women well also states that masters should treat their slaves
::well. And just as women should obey men, slaves should obey masters,
::all according to the Bible.
::
::/Loren
:
:
:Let's put this into a different perspective.  The way I treat my wife is
:with honor and respect.  Why?  Because that is what the Bible tells me
:to do.  I submit, that's right, submit to my wife.  Why?  Because that's
:what the Bible tells me to do.  I serve my wife, I mean like a servant.
:Why?  Because that's what the Bible tells me to do.  

	Is servility all that you can understand?

	What about cooperation?

Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: Elephants CAN'T gallop, damn it!!!
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 20:49:47 GMT

In article <2832@fedfil.UUCP>, news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
> In article <1992Jul21.183247.3020@desire.wright.edu>,
sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
>> Ted, you have been told on numerous occasions that elephants can't gallop
due
>> to their conformation.  
> 
>Face it, Sue...  you and your cohorts aren't really bright enough to be
telling
>me ANYTHING.

Wile E. Cyote voice:
  Ted Holdon, Sooooper Genius.  That has a nice ring to it.

>Your "You have been told" refrain isn't adding anything to the conversation.

  Your repeated ignoring of it adds far less.
 
> Elephants don't gallop because they're too fricking heavy.

  Would you mind pointing out where all us ignoramouses have gone wrong?

>> In case you don't know what that word means, it 
>> means the way they are built.  Ostriches and kangaroos can't gallop either.
>
>Ostriches and kangaroos are essentially bipeds.  

  Which was the point.

***********************************************************************
* Warren Kurt   *  "In our country we have those three unspeakably    *
* vonRoeschlaub *   precious things: freedom of speech, freedom of    *
* kv07@iastate  *   conscience, and the prudence never to practice    *
*               *   either." - Mark Twain                             *
***********************************************************************
Newsgroups: talk.origins