HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: adpeters@sunflower.bio.indiana.edu (Andy Peters)
Subject: Re: A SOLUTION!!! ... to the Collective Action Problem re Kalki's Book
Keywords: diminishing unit cost
Organization: Biology, Indiana University - Bloomington
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 03:17:12 GMT

In article <1992Nov17.211829.22200@athena.mit.edu> lking@athena.mit.edu (Loren King) writes:
>
>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?

I'll chip in a buck, and I nominate Kurt vonRoeschlaub or Dan Ashlock
as reviewers (come on, guys, I know you've got plenty of time on your
hands); though if Kalki prefers someone else I'll defer to his preference.




-- 
* Andy Peters                     * I borrowed Dad's jack.  I'll *
* Program in Evolution,           *   return it and his rivet    * (<-Don't
*      Ecology, and Behavior      *        gun tomorrow          *     ask)
* Indiana University, Bloomington *            -Bob              *
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: lking@athena.mit.edu (Loren King)
Subject: Re: Post-Goedel confidences
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 22:36:51 GMT

In article <97714@netnews.upenn.edu>, weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:
|> In article <1992Nov13.221725.10364@galois.mit.edu>, tycchow@nevanlinna (Timothy Y. Chow) writes:
|> >	 The analogy with Goldbach's conjecture that you bring up later is
|> >a good one.  In the past, mathematicians would have been confident in
|> >saying, "Well, we don't have a proof either way yet, but we know that
|> >there *is* a proof one way or the other.  The problem is a mathematical
|> >one and can be solved by mathematical means."  After Godel, nobody is
|> >willing to say even this.
|> 
|> That's simply not true.  Platonism and logic are a powerful force in
|> assertions regarding open problems.  Just sometimes folks are wrong.


Amusing (well, maybe ... a bit) aside: apparently -- well, according to 
Bertrand Russell's notes and Autobiography -- Goedel himself was an 
unabashed Platonist.


Loren King
MIT
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: sdoe@nmsu.edu (Stephen Doe)
Subject: ATHEISTIC CREATIONISM CONSPIRACY (Was: Re: Creation vs. evolution)
Organization: New Mexico State University
Distribution: world, public
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 23:20:03 GMT

In article <1992Nov13.094728.10798@smds.com> rh@ishmael.UUCP (Richard Harter) writes:
>In article <1992Nov12.193409.8782@aurora.com> isaak@aurora.com (Mark Isaak) writes:
>>Richard,
>>    It is apparent from your posting that you don't know enough about
>>evolution to speak on it.  Perhaps you would be more convincing if
>>you wrote about something you did know about.  How about Creationism?
>>That subject gets remarkably little attention here.  I would like to
>>know, for starters, just what the theory of Creationism claims, and
>>how those claims can be verified.
>
>I don't know which Richard you are addressing, but since quite a
>number of people have claimed that I don't know enough about evolution
>to speak on it, I guess you must be talking to me.
>
>You're certainly right that Creationism gets very little attention here.
>As I understand it The Theory of Creationism claims that an exact account
>of the history of the universe can be found in the King James version of
>the Bible.  It also claims that any discrepancy between that account
>and scientific theory is the caused by The Great Satanic Conspiracy.
>At this point the scientific establishment has been corrupted by the
>Satanic Conspiracy that it almost impossible to sort out true science
>from Satanic science.  [Molecular biologist are particularly corrupt.]
 
Actually Creationism is a conspiracy on the part of atheists.  These
atheists go out and pretend to be fundamentalist Christians.  They
make themselves sound so stupid in the hopes that people will be
driven away from Christianity in droves.  Unfortunately the plan
backfired, because there are a bunch of people out there who fell for
this line of BS.  This just goes to prove, of course, that even the
actions of these evil atheists are used by God to reach the faithful.
I am in awe of the wisdom of God's plan.

>Since the truth of this is evident to any right thinking person there is
>really little more that needs to be said.
 
I have one word for you:  Lithium. 

SD
From: salem@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Bruce Salem)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: In case Bales has convinced you of his honesty...
Date: 21 Nov 1992 05:34:34 GMT
Organization: Stanford Univ. Earth Sciences
NNTP-Posting-Host: pangea.stanford.edu

	This is really funny in the conext of the great effort
Bales has made in the past to deny his own bigotry. Here some
unsophistocated oaf, who is up front with his own bigotry, goes
and blows it for poor old Bob and says excatly what is at the
crux of the whole debate, for Bales and every other Christian
or Religionist Creationist sympathizer. At the crux of the
whole affair is the circular argument that origins are supernatural
because the creator is supernatural ( and we made him, naturally of
course, to justify our own trancendant opinions).

In article <XF8HuB4w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
>bobb@tekig1.PEN.TEK.COM (Robert W Bales) writes:
>
>> The first on the list is the contention that creation is scientific.
[...]
>>                What observations support creationism?
>
>The observation that there is a Supreme Godhead, plus the personal
>statement of this Supreme Godhead that He created the bodily forms of
>the living organisms.
>
>Now, ask us to prove that this Supreme Godhead has been observed, and
>we'll tell you how you personally can observe Him.

	Very good, you have destroyed any scientific pretention to
Creationism, by god!

Bruce Salem
From: bobb@tekig1.PEN.TEK.COM (Robert W Bales)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Bales argument
Date: 18 Nov 92 02:21:39 GMT


Jim Meritt writes:

} Burch Seymore

}I would request that the Merritt v Bales be taken to e-mail. I doubt
}many of us care to split semantic hairs about lies vs whatever. Thank you.

>No can do.  Reasons:

>2. If the reason is to contest his deception, the counters would HAVE to be
>   as public as the original propaganda from Bales.

"Counters" would be objective information which counteracts my assertions.
Providing such evidence would be the most effective method of disposing of
my "propaganda."  But with few exceptions, and those sometime in the past,
Jim does not do this.  I believe that people use the most effective argument
method that they can.  Hence, I have come to think that Jim does not show me
to be objectively wrong because he cannot -- because the facts are not on
his side.

I can't judge intent and motive.  But Jim's technique of ignoring substantive
discussion while attacking character is commonally used to try to win a
discussion/argument when one is actually on the losing side.

>Hence, I do NOT see this as a disagreement with him (a useless action if ever
>I saw one) but actions to prevent his irrational lies from being believed as
>truth by seekers of truth - and this HAS happened in the past, here, with
>him.

Jim has publically said he will modify his position if someone agrees with me.
But this indicates something else -- that if someone agrees with me, it
indicates that I might be right, but that they are decieved.

Furthermore, it is almost an insult to others in this group.  To a certain
extent, they are pictured as incapable of deciding for themselves if what I
say is valid.  Jim must tell them.

   Bob Bales
   Tektronix, Inc.

I help Tektronix make their instruments. They don't help me make my opinions.
From: rowe@pender.ee.upenn.edu (Mickey Rowe)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Emergence again...
Date: 21 Nov 92 19:36:38 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <5594325@blunile.guild.org> dtinker@blunile.guild.org
     (David O. Tinker) writes:

>rowe@pender.ee.upenn.edu (Mickey Rowe) writes:
 
>> The rest of [David's previous] post was equally reasonable, which
>> is why I decided not to respond.
>
>Wow, thanks !

You're welcome.

[from Kalki:]

>> >Actual life displays properties which are not reducible to the
>> >interactions of elementary physical quantities.
>
>As you know, I stated quite the contrary view in the posting you
>reference.

Yes, I have no quarrel with you or even with your usage of the word
emergence.  

>> Wherever the potential for [...] confusion [about the possible
>> above meaning of emergence] remains, I'm against using the word.
>> Anybody else?
>
>I (sort of) agree with you, but then the word "evolution" is freely misused
>in this forum as well, so is "entropy".

I had the same reservations when I made the above statement.  Perhaps
the best indicator that care needs to be taken, however, was Larry's
reaction to Stan's use of the word (the first pitch in this ballgame
:-)  The talk.origins irregulars recognize what we mean when we say
"evolution", and we recognize that newcomers and even some of the
old-timers (e.g. Lionel) don't necessarily mean the same thing.  There
is no such precedent for the word "emergence".  I'm willing to accept
in the future that the irregulars adopt your definition should the
word come up again, but if it does come up with any frequency, it will
at least have to be added into one of the "FAQ" posts.

>: Prof. David O. Tinker      INTERNET: dtinker@blunile.guild.org        :

Mickey Rowe     (rowe@pender.ee.upenn.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: btd@iastate.edu (Benjamin T Dehner)
Subject: Re: It's the Kalki Dasa Show! (was Re: In case Bales has ...)
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 18:22:49 GMT

In <1494@emoryu1.cc.emory.edu> libwca@emory.edu (Bill Anderson) writes:

>kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
>: 
>: The existence of God is testable, and any experiment which purports to
>: reveal Him is falsifiable. I will give you an experimental process by
>: which you can personally observe God, and you can perform the
>: experiment. If you follow the experimental procedure precisely in every

...

>: 
>: Sincerely,
>: Kalki Dasa
>: 
>By all means, Kalki, tell us about this experiment.  You keep
>making truly strange claims about having snapshots of god and
>experiments to make god appear and so on, but it's always "I will
>tell you."  SO tell us.

>Bill       
>so on; could we perhaps have some substance: 

I would like to second this request.  Also, if you have access to a scanner,
could you post (or email) a gif or jpeg of you photograph?  And, since you
wanted to be scientific, a description of where and how the photograph
was taken?  I.e., type of camera, film, light meter readings, location,
time of day, date, and anything else you can tell us (to the best of your
ability/availble records).

Thanks,
Ben

Don't forget to chant:

           Ph-nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin T. Dehner    Dept. of Physics and Astronomy 
btd@iastate.edu       Iowa State University 
                      Ames, IA 50011
From: isaak@aurora.com (Mark Isaak)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: What is consciousness?
Date: 18 Nov 92 18:53:55 GMT
Reply-To: isaak@aurora.com (Mark Isaak)
Organization: The Aurora Group

In article <aas9TB1w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
>Life is revealed by the presence of consciousness,

Doesn't it make more sense to define an unknown quantity in terms of
an observable one, rather than vice versa?
-- 
Mark Isaak           "Every generation thinks it has the answers, and every
isaak@aurora.com      generation is humbled by nature." - Philip Lubin
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: evan@gauss.math.brown.edu (Evan M. Simpson)
Subject: Re: Challenge to the Kalkidom
Organization: Brown University Math Department
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 21:19:17 GMT

In article <1992Nov23.075119.14217@nic.funet.fi>, TMakinen writes:
[Exellent, if slightly flawed, challenge deleted]

|> Shall we play chicken?
|> 
|> Teemu

   I like this experiment, but in practice you would have trouble isolating
single virii (?), taking apart and reassembling each virus, etc. Not that I
think that any of this matters, but to make things easier we could use insects
in sealed boxes. Some boxes contain live insects, some dead, and some are empty.
Ask (X) to label them dead or alive. Labelling a dead or empty as live, or a
live as dead would be evidence against the cliam.
   All of this supposes that Kalki considers insects to be alive. Kalki?
-- 
Evan Simpson               My .sig got stale, so I had to throw it out.  
Brown U. Math Dept.
evan@gauss.math.brown.edu
From: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: what a stupid question
Date: 20 Nov 92 00:19:14 GMT
Organization: animal -- coelomate -- deuterostome

In article <BmmDuB6w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
>colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby) writes:

>> So, a low probability is unacceptable but a miracle is okey-dokey?
>> Nice thinking big shooter.

>What do you mean by "miracle"?

Take a wild guess.

>Kalki Dasa

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"

Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: onar@hsr.no (Onar Aam)
Subject: Re: Lionel, Kalki, and Bales . . . take note
Organization: Rogaland University Centre
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 18:18:22 GMT

>>   So clearly structure does not require intelligence.  (I did not write any o
>> the programs for the bacteria).
>
>There still remains the undeniable fact that these simulations could not
>have existed without your actions and the actions of those who
>contributed, in whatever way, to the project's design and construction.

I like this, Kalki! I really do! You are admitting that a program, when run on its
own, can produce order and information. As an analogy the universe has completely
run on its own since the Big Bang. _*BUT*_  whatever caused the Big Bang is
totally irrelevant to whatever happened after it, whether there is a natural cause
or there is some divinity behind it. 




Onar.
From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Kalki Suggestions
Date: 21 Nov 1992 11:26:35 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu

kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:

>Yes, yes. Very boring to listen to the same things over and over.
>Solution: please hear it the first time.

Perhaps the fault lies in the writer, not the reader.  You seem to enjoy
trying to mock people, but other than that, your posts have mostly been
devoid of any interesting information.

keith
From: johnsd2@vccsouth16.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel Norman Johnson)
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Reply-To: johnsd2@vccsouth16.its.rpi.edu.its1
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 22:57:38 GMT

In article 8gV9TB8w165w@kalki33, kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us () writes:
>weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:
>
>> In article <7ZD4TB3w165w@kalki33>, kalki33!system@lakes writes:
>> 
>> >> >Read the book.
>> 
>> >Read the book.
>> 
>> Is this your new chant?
>
>We think you're a chicken, bwak, bwak, bwak! Come on, you yellow-bellied
>pseudo scientist. Put up them dukes! Awwww, does duh poor baby want
>momma to take away dat nasty pwoof? Awwww, don't cwy, baby! Momma will
>make dem nasty cweationists all go away. Den baby can have his bottle!

Actually, we all want mommy to bring the proof. :)

>Sincerely,
>Kalki "maggots from meat, maggots from meat" Dasa

I think its cute that you stick comments in your name, but
I dont see how this one is relevent, to, well, anything.

---
			- Dan Johnson
And God said "Jeeze, this is dull"... and it *WAS* dull. Genesis 0:0

These opinions have had all identifiying marks removed, and are untraceable.
You'll never know whose they are.
From: jviv@usmi01.midland.chevron.com (John Viveiros)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Supernova vs Abiogenesis
Date: 17 Nov 92 17:12:12 GMT
Organization: Chevron

In article <97921@netnews.upenn.edu> weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:
>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!).
-- 
John Viveiros     (jviv@chevron.com)
Chevron USA        Standard disclaimer applies
Midland TX 
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: elsberry@beta.tricity.wsu.edu (Wesley Elsberry)
Subject: Re: Us? Them?
Summary: A small correction
Organization: Washington State University Tri-Cities, Richland
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 92 06:00:57 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.161846.15905@hemlock.cray.com> robd@cherry09.cray.com (Robert Derrick) writes:
>
>Long gone:
>  Jim Loucks, Jim Henley, Ray Cote, C. Allen Roy, Chuck Maier, Michael LeHoullier,
>  and the guy that promised us free copies of the JW "Life" book and never
>  delivered (what was his name?).  

Steve something-or-other.  I don't know what happened to your copy, Rob,
but I got mine.  (Why is your name not Jack?  ;-} )

I'm trying to figure which items cited in the JW book I can get free through
our library here.  I figure that a compendium of quotes with context could
be a popular item for book debunking.  I did check out Hitching's "Neck of
the Giraffe" book, which is heavily cited by the JW's, but which also has
some pretty nasty things to say about SciCre (which, of course, the JW's
do not quote, even in part).

Chuck Maier seems to have dropped out of the on-line debate scene since last
July or thereabouts.  He doesn't even show up on FidoNet anymore.

Wesley R. Elsberry
Sysop, Central Neural System BBS 509-627-6267  1:347/303
From: rowe@pender.ee.upenn.edu (Mickey Rowe)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Date: 20 Nov 92 23:38:55 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

I wrote something previously that Kalki did not understand.  (Well,
there's only one thing that I can recall where his lack of
understanding was explicit...)  Let me try again.

Kalki let's say that you have the genome of a dog (I'm not saying that
your genome is that of a dog, but rather that you know the complete
sequences of all of a dog's genetic material).  Now you find another
dog, and you have its genome as well.  This second dog appears less
dog-like to you, and you find the mutation in the genome that lead to
the non-dog-like characteristics.  In your opinion, does one of the
genomes contain less information than the other merely because of this
mutation?

In article <RwJFuB9w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
   writes:

(Mickey Rowe) wrote:

>> Although Watson in a typical fit of hubris claimed absolute certainty
>> that current life can be explained entirely by physical chemistry, he
>> did not address abiogenesis in the quotes you posted.  Furthermore
>> there was nothing in the posted quote which indicated that Watson's
>> hubris came about because he "wanted to believe" what he said.
>
>I beg your pardon. I thought that hubris was not a valid scientific
>method. 

You're correct.  Are you unaware of the fact that "scientist" is a
subset of "human"?  Do you recognize that scientists can and do do
unscientific things?  Hubris is not a "valid scientific method", but
it is a trait that some scientists possess.

>I also thought that one of the supposed properties of life is
>that it arose through abiogenesis.

You seem to have a peculiar definition of the word "property".  But my
answer is no, *I* do not consider life's history to be a "property" of
said life.  I sincerely doubt that very many other speakers of the
english language would agree with you either.

>Kalki Dasa

Kalki I realize that you have a lot of things to respond to, but can't
you at least respond in full to those things which do get your
attention?  How is it that you know Watson's motivation for his
statements?  This is now the third time that I've pointed out to you
that I'm objecting to the following underscored text from one of your
previous posts:

}In spite of the fact that the laws of physics are very simple, and in
}spite of the fact that scientists can not even begin to precisely
}specify any set of initial conditions for the origin of life,
}nevertheless, simply because they want to believe it, they claim that
               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>"in principle" there is such a set of initial conditions that will turn
>lifeless matter into living organisms in a certain period of time.

Did your "consciousness" directly contact Watson's at some point?  If
so, why are you witholding that information?

Mickey Rowe     (rowe@pender.ee.upenn.edu)
From: waynebro@juliet.caltech.edu (Broughton, Wayne Jeremy)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Reincarnation proved!!!
Date: 20 Nov 1992 11:58 PST
Organization: California Institute of Technology
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: juliet.caltech.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <1992Nov13.054936.10004@nic.funet.fi>, TMakinen writes...
>It has happened!
> 
>A student of mathematical theology was writing a fairy tale with TeX when, all
              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Wow!  I wonder what that is?  Is God quantifiable now?  Or is it a special
type of mathematics: modern mathematics (and in particular some of Hilbert's
abstract existence theorems) has been called "Theology" by Constructivists!

>(Where are all the smileys ??? Here, here! :) :) :) :) 

Wayne. 
**********************************************************************

Wayne J. Broughton                 Take the road less travelled by.  
waynebro@juliet.caltech.edu    
Department of Mathematics,
Caltech, Pasadena, CA  91125

Caltech has no idea what my opinions are;  
they think I'm working right now...
From: libwca@emory.edu (Bill Anderson)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Date: 16 Nov 92 16:18:39 GMT
Organization: Emory University, Atlanta, GA
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3

kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
: varney@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (Al Varney) writes:
: 
: >    Have you also calculated the probability of the watchmaker being
: > formed without a designer, without guidance?  If not, does that mean
: > someone/something designed the watchmaker?  And would that designer
: > be even more complex than the watchmaker?  What is the probability
: > of your EXACT God coming into existence without a designer?
: > 
: >    Or are these areas we're not allowed to ponder/investigate?
: 
: Indeed, ponder it.
: 
: Sincerely,
: Kalki "with scientists like these, who needs the ICR" Dasa
: 

Kalki, um... I don't know if you've noticed this, but... well, 
your middle name keeps changing.  Might want to have that looked
at.
Bill   
:        -------------------------------------------------------
:       |  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