HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lawson@acuson.com (Drew Lawson)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Logic and God (was: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Date: 28 Aug 92 17:14:35 GMT
Reply-To: lawson@aldia.UUCP (Drew Lawson)
Organization: ACUSON, Mountain View, CA

In article <1992Aug28.034635.3981@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard) writes:
>In article <1992Aug27.161332.12048@acuson.com> lawson@aldia.UUCP (Drew Lawson) writes:

>>>btw, what are these parts of the picture you think I'm missing?
>>
>>The world and its purpose is large and complex.  It is also only a
>>small part of the greater plan of existance.  None of us have the whole
>>big picture.
>
>We have more evidence for 1,000,000 year old animals than we do for
>a God, why should I believe this statement if you are unwilling to
>even accept the virtually flawless evidence for animals existing 1,000,000
>years ago?

I don't know.  It is your choice as to what to believe.  I was just
clarifying my statement so that it would not appear that I had implied
something different (such as that _I_ have the whole picture).


>>>Pardon me, but saying "there's a purpose, but I don't know what it is" seems
>>>a bit irrational to me.  Saying "I don't know what purpose it could have,
>>>but it's purpose couldn't possibably be for dating" is even more so.
>>
>>While I don't agree with you on this, how rational (in your definition)
>>is, "The only possible reason these exist is to show that the world os
>>old and that all species originated through evolution."
>
>But why should I believe in a God whom there is no evidence for, and
>try to worm my way out of the enourmous evidence for evolution, when instead
>I can believe in evolution and not have to try to explain away anything?

You are avoiding the question.  Since you quoted it, I assume you mean
to address it.

I am told I am irrational for accepting the existance of purpose
without knowing the details.  Why is it not irrational to _insist_ that
you have the only explanation for the fossil record.

When I say I have the one answer, I am irrational.
When you say you have the one answer, you are scientific.


>>I didn't claim that evolution disproves God's existence.  I claimed
>>that many who post in favor of evolution claim that the "evidence"
>>proves (at least) God's uninvolvement.
>
>It proves that it can happen without God's involvment, and given the
>utter lack of evidence for a God or his involvement why should we assume
>God was involved?

What about prophets for millenia testifying of his message?

I know, you're decided so don't talk to you.

-- 
Drew Lawson                      If you're not part of the solution,
lawson@acuson.com                you're part of the precipitate
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:15831 talk.origins:10748
From: lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Evolutionism must be defeated!
Date: 3 Sep 92 12:05:51 GMT
Organization: City University, London

In article <1992Sep2.180407.12729@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu> csfed@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (Frank Doss) writes:
>In article <1992Sep2.125346.202636@uctvax.uct.ac.za> fllant01@uctvax.uct.ac.za writes:
>>
>>"For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine.
>>Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great
>>number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will
>>turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths." 2 Tim 4:3-4
>>
>
>How odd of Timothy to predict what his new religion would boil down to.
>Some people just do not want to hear from what we evolved.  They,
>instead, chose to believe that we were divinely created as the universe's
>reason for being.  The myths of creation.  So Timothy was correct.
>
>
>-- 
>
>Frank Doss 

Lord, forgive him for he does not know what he is saying.

--
Lionel Tun   (lionel@cs.city.ac.uk)
Vision Group, City University, London, EC1V 0HB. 071-477 8000 x 3889
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:15783 talk.origins:10708
From: bsmart@bsmart.TTI.COM (Bob Smart)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!
Date: 2 Sep 92 08:29:51 GMT
Reply-To: bsmart@bsmart.TTI.COM (Bob Smart)
Distribution: na
Organization: Citicorp+TTI

In article <1992Aug27.043427.505@panix.com>, carlf@panix.com (Carl Fink)
writes...
>   Drew, there are no Martian canals.  Never were.  They were a combination
> of bad telescopy and wishful thinking.  There are no features on Mars
> that resemble the "canali" of Mars.  Furthermore, even when some people
> did accept their existence, no reputable scientist thought of them as
> evidence of an advanced civilization on Mars.

Now, will someone PLEASE leak this scientific secret to Dan Quayle?

	Mars is essentially in the same orbit...somewhat the same
	distance from the Sun, which is very important.  We have
	seen pictures where there are canals, we believe, and water.

	--Vice President Dan Quayle, chairman of the National Space
	  Advisory Council (if that don't make your blood run cold!)

---------

A fanatic is someone who does what he knows that God would do if God knew the
facts of the case.

Some mailers apparently munge my address; you might have to use
bsmart@bsmart.tti.com -- or if that fails, fall back to
72027.3210@compuserve.com.  Ain't UNIX grand?
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:15791 talk.origins:10714
From: sichase@csa3.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Logic and God (was: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Date: 3 Sep 92 02:50:14 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
Distribution: na
Reply-To: sichase@csa3.lbl.gov
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.198
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   

In article <2AA5521E.2842@ics.uci.edu>, bvickers@valentine.ics.uci.edu (Brett J. Vickers) writes...
>>>SCIENCE DOES NOT PROVE A THEORY!!! It can only dis-prove a theory.
> 
>sichase@csa3.lbl.gov writes:
[various scientific facts beyond contention deleted]
> 
>I would call most of these things scientific facts, not theories.
>There is a difference between what science perceives as fact and what
>it perceives as theory.  The original poster is correct; science never
>proves a theory.  It can only be used to disprove.  A scientific

Your argument is unfair.  All the items I listed were hotly contested
theories at one time.  For example, whether atoms had objective reality 
was the subject of debate for over a century.  The nature of their substructure
was contentious until quantum mechanics provided a mechanism for atom 
stabilities.  *Now* you call it a fact.  But the theory was proven.
If you will call all proven theories "facts" then I suppose that you must be
correct that you can never prove a theory.  You can only prove facts.
But it seems to be like you're twisting the language just to win what 
ends up being a vacuous argument.

-Scott

--------------------
Scott I. Chase			"The question seems to be of such a character
SICHASE@CSA2.LBL.GOV		that if I should come to life after my death
				and some mathematician were to tell me that it
				had been definitely settled, I think I would
				immediately drop dead again."      - Vandiver
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:15918 talk.origins:10862
From: lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: I visited the ICR in person (4 of 4)
Date: 31 Aug 92 16:14:00 GMT
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <schnitzi.715268590@eola.cs.ucf.edu>, schnitzi@cs.ucf.edu (Mark Schnitzius) writes...
>slinke@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (Steven Linke) writes:
>> 
>>The hall included a picture of an astronaut (I forget his name)
>>who proclaims his faith in God and Creation.  One woman walking
>>by commented, "He's a creationist, and he's a rocket scientist.
>>He's a good guy.  Why do they put him in with the bad guys?"
>>[referring to the pictures of Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, Marx, etc.]
>>Another guy remarked, "Most of the astronauts that I've heard of
>>believe in God when they come back down."  To which his friend
>>replied, "It would be hard not to."
> 
>The astronaut in question is most likely (Edgar?) Mitchell, a
>wacko who spent many of his post-astronaut days in search of
>Noah's ark (this would make sense in light of the earlier mentions
>of the Noah's ark exhibit).  He may have been an astronaut, but
>he's certainly no rocket scientist :-)

No, it's probably James Irwin.  Mitchell is the one who started the
Institute for Noetic Sciences and is into the paranormal.  Irwin is
the Arkeologist.

Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: Logic and God (was: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 21:50:50 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.161332.12048@acuson.com>, lawson@acuson.com (Drew Lawson)
writes:
> In article <1992Aug25.194506.112601@zeus.calpoly.edu> skroger@zeus.calpoly.edu
(Seth L. Kroger) writes:
>>seems to indicate, is ludicrious.  In "creating evidence of age," he would
>>have taken an action whose only purpose is to decieve us.  This contradicts
>>the basic concepts of God, therefore, this situation couldn't possibably
>>exist."
> 
> This sound remarkably like the Bable fish argument.  Only that was
> presented as a joke.

  Not exactly.  The catch in the Bable fish story was the assumption A=>~A. 
This argument above is reasonable, it is proof by contradiction:

    1) Assume: God would not purposely trick people.
    2) Assume: God created the universe and gave it the apperance of age.
    3) Thinking the universe is old is being tricked.
    4) God is tricking people.  Contradiction.
    5) There is a contradiction, so one of our assumptions must be false.
    6) Therefore: God did not create the universe with the apperance of age.
                  or: God will purposely trick people.

  Which assumption do you think is false?

 |  __L__   *******************************
-|-  ___    * Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub   *
 |  | o |   * kv07@iastate.edu            *
 |/ `---'   * Iowa State University       *
/|   ___    * Math Department             *
 |  |___|   * 400 Carver Hall             *
 |  |___|   * Ames, IA  50011             *
 J  _____   *******************************
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
From: believer@world.std.com (Frank G Sesco)
Subject: Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 15:35:34 GMT

In article <8-gn=n=.payner@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>In article <Bts1xA.DEs@world.std.com> believer@world.std.com (Frank G Sesco) writes:
>>In article <schumach.714786240@convex.convex.com> schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher) writes:
>>{The logic of man deleted}
>>
>>>I toss the question back at you: given the tons of evidence that the Earth
>>>is old, what would evidence of a recnt origin look like? A little notice
>>>attached to the Earth somewhere, "Copyright (C) 4004 BC by Yahweh. All rights
>>>reserved"?
>>
>>Open your bible to the first page and read!
>
>The Bible states that god created heaven and earth, but it does not state
>when. Perhaps you did not understand the question. It seems clear enough
>to me.

Please refer to the listing of the Ancestors of Christ in the Gospels. 
While people where said to live longer back then, no one claims they 
lived millions of years.

>>It says right there that God created the heaven and earth. To state
>>otherwise is to claim that God lied. The bible tells us that cursing
>>the holy spirit is an unforgiveable sin!
>
>And that same loving god <yeah, right> will then send your soul to an
>eternity of excrutiating torture. This ain't love.

GOD gives you a CHOICE. The wages of sin are DEATH.


-- 
  |                     In God We Trust                            |
--+--                                                            --+--
  |                                                                |
  |                                                                |
From: Rick.Moen@f207.n914.z8.rbbs-net.ORG (Rick Moen)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Pseudoskepticism
Date: 3 Sep 92 10:57:05 GMT

Reply-To: Rick_Moen@blyth.com
 
In article <10539@sun13.scri.fsu.edu>, Eric Pepke said, among other
things, this stuff:
 
> If you have any human decency....
 
Not as much as a molecule -- or however decency is denominated,  
these days.
 
> ...designed to be unverifiable....
 
Ad hominem and unfounded.
 
> Jeez, you still just don't get it, do you?
 
No, I think _you're_ the one with the comprehension problem, Eric.
I've been waiting for years for those bozos to just go away and just
leave me alone.  As if it weren't bad enough to get ambushed on
_Usenet_, of all places with garbage accusations, across the goddamned 
globe, then we get people like YOU making out-of-the-blue wisecracks
like yours of a few days ago, suggesting that I was trying to _fight_
with that joker, instead of just wanting to be left the hell alone.
 
Let me be quite clear:  I don't want to fight cranks who call themselves
skeptics, nor their groupies.  I don't want to hear from them, hear 
about them, be near them, be associated with them, BE LUMPED TOGETHER
WITH THEM BY ERIC PEPKE because I took apart unprovoked personal slurs,
from one of them, or bloody well have to _think_ about them.  You got 
that, now?
 
As we say in California, "thanks for sharing".
 
Regards,
Rick M.  Not claiming to speak for anyone else.

 * Origin: The Skeptic's Board in San Mateo - Bay Area Skeptics (8:914/207)
From: biow@cs.umd.edu (chris biow)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Paradoxes? (was Re: Why binary logic?)
Date: 31 Aug 92 14:11:19 GMT
Organization: U of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Science, Coll. Pk., MD 20742

In article <1992Aug31.011511.1322@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes:

>Paradoxes like: "This statement is false"

>...

>Could it be that in a higher form of logic these problems need not arise?

To the contrary, the statement presented above _is_ in a higher order
logic (second order) and is ill-formed at that. Don't confuse English
statements with formal logics. English allows you to say lots of 
meaningless things that sound profound, such as, "A thing must 
either be or not be."

In formal, first order logic, you can't express, "This statement is false."
However, Godel showed that you could produce a proposition which 
acheived somewhat the same effect, such that the proposition could 
have neither the valuation "true" nor the valuation "false." However, 
the existence of such a statement by no means invalidated the use of 
first order logic. In fact, the most important corollary of Godel's
proposition is that _any_ logic which has at least the expressive
power of first order logic will also allow the expression of propositions
which are neither true nor false. It is not the two-valued-ness of first
order logic which allows such propositions to be expressed; multi-
valued logics have this problem and more.

Perhaps a logician can give even more detail and examples.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.culture.usenet,talk.origins
From: carlf@panix.com (Carl Fink)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: 17 Supposed Evidences against Evolution
Date: 30 Aug 92 17:58:22 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC


  If you could send me photocopies of the articles and photos, perhaps
we could determine something.  I'm a biology grad student, and I have a good
friend who's a Japanese student.  (Student of Japanese, not a student
from Japan.)  I'd be glad to send a check to cover photocopying expenses.

-- 
==============================================================================
Carl Fink          carlf@panix.com, C.FINK4(GEnie), or CF427620I@LIUVAX.BITNET
  "Nothing so needs reforming as other people's habits"  -  Mark Twain
From: swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Paradoxes? (was Re: Why binary logic?)
Date: 2 Sep 92 05:20:49 GMT
Reply-To: swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <1992Aug31.011511.1322@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes:
|>What paradoxes? What stuck?
|
|Paradoxes like: "This statement is false"
|
|Surely, is a function of the naive classical logic that skeptics dogmatically
|use.

Emprimus, in Fuzzy Logic this has a truth value of 0.5.

Secundus, I am a skeptic, but I am not dogmatic about classical logic.

|Could it be that in a higher form of logic these problems need not arise?

Tertius, I would hesitate to call Fuzzy Logic a *higher* form, just
a different one.

|Also paradoxes such as freewill v. determinancy/indeterminancy etc. etc.
|might make better progress in another logical system.

This is difficult to say.  Fuzzy logic is too new to have been properly
applied to these problems.  But I suspect that they are not helped much
by multi-valued logic.  All you really get out of Fuzzy logic is a fancy
way of saying "I don't know", which is already the answer we get for
these questions.
-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: arsmith@nyx.cs.du.edu (Alan Smith)
Subject: Re: Faq List for skeptics
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 06:54:16 GMT


I thought we had a FAQ.  Don't we already have a FAQ?

Big Al.  I remember reading an article about UFOs in it.  I *hope* we have
a FAQ.
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:15260 talk.origins:10267
From: lawson@acuson.com (Drew Lawson)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!
Date: 27 Aug 92 19:04:49 GMT
Reply-To: lawson@aldia.UUCP (Drew Lawson)
Organization: ACUSON, Mountain View, CA

In article <2A9AB280.29210@ics.uci.edu> bvickers@ics.uci.edu (Brett J. Vickers) writes:

>Most reasonable opinions are based on fact; I'd like to understand
>whether or not your opinion is reasonable.  Personally, I don't
>think it is.  That is why I asked if you had any scientific evidence
>to support your claim that the earth is young.  I know of plenty
>of evidence that supports an old age of the universe and the
>earth, but I know of none that supports the opposite conclusion.
>If you had some, I think you would be helping your cause by
>sharing it.


No, I don't have and scientific evidence for this.  There are many
other things for which I have no evidence:
  - that my life has meaning or purpose
  - that some actions are better than others (i.e. helping someone up
    rather than stepping on his face)
  - that I love my wife
  - that a stary summer night is beautiful

I don't know about you, but these are not things that I am about to
discard for lack of evidence.  I hold the view that not all things are
within the realm of science.  Some call this crackpot.  I don't care.


>>A theory of creation?  How about:  The world was created by God.
>
>Let me be more specific.  Why don't you produce a scientific
>theory of creation?

Because I don't feel it is a scientific matter.


>I wrote:
>>>(By the way, the theory of evolution does not attempt to explain how
>>>life got here -- only how it evolved once it began to exist).
>
>Drew wrote:
>>In its most common usage, it starts from a presumption of very simple
>>life forms (single celled, no-nucleus, etc.)  It is used to explain all
>>current life forms.  This is pretty close to a common usage definition
>>of where life came from.
>
>You basically restated what I just stated, except you used
>examples.  Evolution explains how life evolved from life.
>It does not explain how life originated from non-life.  Yours
>is a common misconception.

In practice, it is said that evolution explains how humans, dogs,
horses, etc. came to be.  In _common usage_ (as I said before), this is
what is meant by where life came from.

If I have a misconception _and_ restated your definition, where do we
disagree?

>>I know that biblical content is not admissable in a scientific
>>context.  I have said so repeatedly.  What disturbs me is the trend to
>>use the presence of {fossils, isochron dates, sediment layers, etc.} as
>>EVIDENCE for the non-existence of God.  While it may lead an individual
>>to loose faith, it is not proof of that matter.
>
>I don't think I've ever heard a reputable scientist argue for the
>nonexistence of God based on the fossil record or on any facet of
>evolutionary theory.

I should have said that it is taken as evidence of the non-existance of
God as portrayed in the Bible.

-- 
Drew Lawson                      If you're not part of the solution,
lawson@acuson.com                you're part of the precipitate
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Logic and God (was: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
From: skroger@zeus.calpoly.edu (Seth L. Kroger)
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 20:25:40 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo

lawson@aldia.UUCP (Drew Lawson) writes:
>In article <3628@execu.execu.com> mike@execu.execu.com (Mike McCants) writes:
>>Now really - the use of "unable to make a mistake" makes this a very
>>silly statement.  Do you really think that a scientist has this
>>expectation?  Have you heard any scientists claim infallibility recently?
>
>Within the posting to which that was a response, it is not so "silly."
>Don't pull statements out of context and make them look to be universal
>when they were not made that way.

But, your claims are still silly on the face of it, no matter what the
context.

>>Who claims to have discovered "why" the universe was created?
>>Is this claim a "scientific" one?
>
>The "they" in the post refered to the items in the fossil record and
>the radiometric dating.  The evolutionary community claims that the
>"why" is that these creatures existed millions of years ago.  Yes,
>someone does claim to know why, and they also claim to be scientific.

That's "how" they got there, not "why" or the "purpose" of their existence.

>>What DOES tell you that there is one?  Is it "intuitively obvious"?
>>Is it "revealed truth"?
>
>It is a personal suspicion, consistent with what I know to be true.
>But that suspicion is not proven or disproven.

In other words, nothing that really show whether the statement is true or
false.  Sounds pretty irrational to me.

>>A statement of personal faith should not be ridiculed.  It is quite
>>courageous of you to post it.  But, how can I trust your personal
>>statement that the theory of evolution is a mistake, when all of
>>the scientific evidence indicates the contrary?
>
>You cannot trust my statement further than you can trust Darwin's
>statement.  They are both places to begin your own personal
>investigation.  You seem to be impressed by the weight of one side.
>I'm not certain you have examined the other side as closely -- which is
>your choice, of course.

I can trust Darwin's statement because it's suceptible to objective evidence
and to modification.  It has been modified extensively since Darwin, and has
been supported by objective evidence.  Your claim is suceptible to neither.
Since there is no objective way you can show others the truth of your
statement, I personally couldn't trust it.

>Drew Lawson                      If you're not part of the solution,


|======================================================================|
| Seth Kroger                       "If God made us in His image we    |
| skroger@pan.calpoly.edu               have certianly returned the    |
| Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo             compliment."  -Voltaire        |