HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: czl30@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Chris Lee)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Evol & God : CANNOT Co-exist!
Date: 28 Aug 92 21:05:21 GMT
Reply-To: czl30@DUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Chris Lee)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <1992Aug28.004002.4893@ccu.umanitoba.ca> vnelson@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Gerald Vernon Nelson) writes:
>In <1992Aug27.125924.21174@linus.mitre.org> m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Aug27.050110.21622@ccu.umanitoba.ca> vnelson@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Gerald Vernon Nelson) writes:
>>}All life on this planet can only have a single point of origin.
>
>>Why?
> What caused the origin of the very first cell?
> Did God make the first cell?  Yes or No?  It is a binary question.
> 
> You cannot answer, god did, but it did it by itself too.
>
> God and evolution are contradicting theories.
>
>Vern Nelson

"God and evolution are contradicting theories"

Quite possibly. But first you have to define "God". There are as many
different versions of "God" as there are various sects of the various
religions. Possibly more, as individuals within the same sect often can't
agree on the attributes of "God". But everybody Knows that their own
version is The Only Revealed Truth. And wars get fought over it.

Is "God" a theory? I don't know that it could be called that. Admittedly
"God" is an interesting concept, but unless somebody defines their "God"
before they start arguing, I really have no idea what they mean. Vern's
interpretation of "God" is obviously not the same as Bill's, for example.
Yet when Vern says "God" he expects everybody to accept what he (Vern)
means.

The reason I am putting the quotes around "God" is that if I don't, I am
accepting somebody else's definition. And I just don't know what that
definition is.

Actually, evolution is not a theory. Things change over time. The word
"evolution" was coined as the name of these changes. Everything evolves:
cars, computers, languages, religions, even peoples' interpretation of
their god (compare the blood-thirsty OT god with the modern Christian
version, which isn't the same as the christian version 150 years ago).
The THEORY of evolution is an attempt to understand WHY and HOW things
evolve.

It doesn't matter what religion you believe. But start with assumptions
and not axioms. If your assumptions do not match the physical evidence,
or contain internal inconsistencies, then revise the assumptions until
the inconsistencies disappear. This is not inconsistent with religion,
indeed you will probably have more faith because areas of doubt have
been resolved. And there will be more respect for your views.

"God and evolution are contradicting theories"

They don't have to be!


Chris Lee
From: maguire@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Bill Maguire)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Creationism Philosophy  (was: White skin--how)?
Date: 2 Sep 92 18:56:24 GMT
	<1992Aug25.102900.9620@city.cs> <1992Aug25.143650@IASTATE.EDU>
	<1992Aug31.205727.18111@aurora.com>
Organization: Clarkson University, Potsdam NY

In article <1992Aug25.102900.9620@city.cs>, lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun)
writes:
 
> Apartheid, racism, bullying etc are man-made evils. The
> rejection of God and man's decision not to obey God's
> will are the major contributors to this sorry state of
> the world. Where is `love your neighbour' in the
> evolutionary philosophy? 


Love thy nieghbor is in the evolutionary philosophy.  Read Steven J.
Goulds new book (forget the title, published in 1991).  In one of his
essay he talks about the early Russian view on darwin.  The british
capitalists saw in his theory the "Survival of the Strongest." and
preached this view of evolution.  The Russians, who lived in an area
where the environment was the biggest threat preached "Survival
through cooperation."  Darwin had originally proposed both mechanisms.
Darwins theory was survival of the fittest.  An organism wanted to see
its genes carried in the next generations.  In a great deal of
situations by "helping ones neighbor/relative" one can greatly
increase ones chances of having ones genes carried in the next
generation

Many organisms cooperate for survival.   Social insects (they've found
a small rodent that lives like a social insect, see the august issue
of Scientific America), host/parasites, herd animals, pack animals
(don't know the correct terminology, dogs, lions, etc.), etc.

If you thought evolution was just the cold hard survival of the
individual you were wrong, it can be the cold hard survival of a group
of individuals.  Its only our view as social animals that adds the
warmth.

-Bill
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: keithd@well.sf.ca.us (Keith Doyle)
Subject: Re: White skin-how did it develope?
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 05:04:40 GMT



>lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun) writes:
>>
>>Accepting the evolutionary paradigm does strip humans of their
>>sense of purpose, sometimes their worth and dignity.

slinke@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (Steven Linke) responds:
>It doesn't strip me of MY sense of purpose, worth, and dignity.
>Maybe you and others suffer from a lack of these attributes, but
>that is a personal problem, not a problem created by a scientific
>theory.

It sure is a personal problem.  Obviously Lionel's sense of
purpose, worth, and dignity is so weak he has to prop it up,
and not even with an omnicient, omnipotent being, but more
specifically with an omnicient, omnipotent book.


Keith
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: answer to John Ata's whining
Date: 1 Sep 92 14:49:00 GMT
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA

In article <1992Sep1.013810.28124@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes:
}In article <94997@bu.edu> colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby) writes:
}>In article <1992Aug30.045904.20484@hfsi.uucp> ata@hfsi.UUCP (John Ata FSO) writes:
}>
}>>One thing I will say.  Of the two sides in
}>>this argument, one side is polite and tries to honestly convey
}>>what they think, while the other side, which is in the majority,
}>>tends to be emotional and rude.
}>
}>Well, you are entitled to your opinion; but on the other hand
}>one side has an actual scientific theory to defend and has
}>never seen a direct attack on it. I have yet to see someone
}
}If one party is polite and the other is rude (in any debate or argument)
}then to an outside observer, the "rude party" is the one that looks
}suspicious and insecure about its own theory.
}
}I know this is a cruel assumption that people make (as the real reason could
}be that the "rude party" simply is immature & has bad communication
}skills, but happens to have the correct theory) but that is the way things
}are.

I'm not worried.  Guess what?  Reality isn't especially concerned with WHAT
you, or I, or anyone else happens to think.  And stupidity is its own
reward.
From: swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Bill Riggs _astounding_ ignorance of basic biology
Date: 3 Sep 92 19:59:55 GMT
Reply-To: swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <95197@bu.edu> colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby) writes:
|In article <1288@tecsun1.etl.army.mil> riggs@descartes.tec.army.mil (Bill Riggs) writes:
|
|>	Point of historical fact. Just *when* was enough empirical
|>data gathered to prove:
|>
|>	- Abiogenesis ?
|
|Abiogenesis is not a fact (IMHO) as an alternate hypothesis extists
|(panspermia).

Not really, panspermia just pushes abiogenesis back a couple of eons.
[Unless, like its main proponent, you postulate a steady state universe
that had no beginning, and thus may *always* have had life].

-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
From: bseymour@encore.com (Burch Seymour)
Subject: Re: Holden Numbering
Organization: Encore Computer Corporation
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 16:24:13 GMT

news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:

>In article <KAI.92Aug31094228@kai.nada.kth.se>, kai@kai.nada.kth.se (Kai-Mikael J-Aro) writes:
>> 
>> Do giraffes lie down to sleep?  

>I honestly don't know, but they DO so something a good deal more interesting.

>They carry their necks almost straight up;  it's the only way they can deal
>with the weight.

I've been to the Zoo Ted. Giraffes are able to bend their heads down.
I've seen it! Wow!  Humans carry their spines almost straight up too.
It's easier. Doesn't mean they can't bend their spines at other angles.

>to have.  Were such a creature to have 30,000 lbs of mass from the shoulders
>outwards, and this seems conservative since it weighed 360,000 lbs, and a
>center of gravity 15' out from the shoulders for this 30,000 neck, which
>also seems conservative, then it was looking at 450,000 ft. lbs. of torque.

You seem to be the *only* person who believes these weights.

>You've got a total dilemma here.  The ONLY way out is to assume that the felt
>effect of gravity was then heavily attenuated.

Nope. *YOU* have a total dilemma. You might reconsider your weight figures
for the dinosaurs.

-bs-
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: Logic and God and Drew...
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 16:14:47 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.124041.1@si151a.llnl.gov>, brinkman@si151a.llnl.gov
writes:
> 2) A Creator initially set up the Earth and the conservation laws, and thus
>    created a clock-work mechanism in which further intervention is neither
>    necessary nor expressed.  This is deism, which is definately not a
>    theistically acceptable belief.

  Actually, I don't think this is Deism unless you support that _everything_ is
set up as clockwork.  Even then you need the "nor expressed" part also.  Even if
everything is set up like clockwork, this does not preclude devine intervention.
The results would still be unmeasurable by scientific standards (unless of
course one can predict where God will intervene) and is most certainly a
theistically acceptable belief.

  I know with you example intervention is unexpected, but to be deism, there
must be no intervention on any set of parameters (for lack of a better
description).  Hmm, this really should follow up to talk.religion.misc.

  My conclusion: just because something is operating outside of direct
intervention by God does not make it atheistic (in any sense) or deistic, but is
open to theism.

 |  __L__   *******************************
-|-  ___    * Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub   *
 |  | o |   * kv07@iastate.edu            *
 |/ `---'   * Iowa State University       *
/|   ___    * Math Department             *
 |  |___|   * 400 Carver Hall             *
 |  |___|   * Ames, IA  50011             *
 J  _____   *******************************
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: adpeters@sunflower.bio.indiana.edu (Andy Peters)
Subject: Re: Put up or shut up, Antti.
Organization: Program in Evolution, Ecology, and Behavior, Indiana University
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 18:00:52 GMT

In article <1992Sep4.111129.27698@cs.joensuu.fi> asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
>adpeters@sunflower.bio.indiana.edu (Andy Peters) writes:
>>Well, they must be pretty good biologists, then, huh?  Can you list
>>some of their publications?  University affiliation?  "The BBS System" is
>>pretty big.  How about helping us out?
>
>	Norrdahl: LM 1991 ALA ARV pop. in Eastern Bothnia comes first to my mind

Thank you.  Now, how about giving a citation I can understand, so I can
actually go and look this reference up.  If it's in Finnish, or some
other non-English language, could you post a translation of the title and
abstract in English (or maybe email would be better unless other people
want to see it.)?  And what about Menem?

>>Antti, I haven't seen anything of substance from you yet.  Show us
>>you have some way to back up what you say, or stop wasting our time.
>
>	How about the L. argentatus -case ?

You wrote:
>        I suppose you (all) know the famous Larus fuscus - Larus argentatus
>        -case ? In this it SEEMS to be speciation, but it's only micro-
>        evolution.

1) I do not know of this case.  Please post a reference.

2) What you say about it implies that it is one case where someone
   thought speciation had occurred, but it hadn't.  How does this
   bring into question the speciation examples given by Chris Colby,
   with which you have dealt only in bald, unsupported assertion?
   If the _Larus_ case is what you say it is, it doesn't disprove
   speciation in general.  Please give a reference, and make sure
   you continue to do so with any data you might by chance happen
   to refer to in the future.

>	Btw. never visited Russia ?

No.  Ever visited Bloomington?  What's the point?

I repeat the demand from the subject heading:  put up or shut up.

>		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint

-- 
* Andy Peters                     * "Slugs are small and portable    *From
* Program in Evolution,           * Just stuff 'em up your nose      *"Slugs,"
*      Ecology, and Behavior      * They'll fit beneath your armpits *by David
* Indiana University, Bloomington * Or right between your toes"      *Greenberg
From: news@fedfil.UUCP (news)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: White skin-how did it develope?
Date: 28 Aug 92 00:06:48 GMT
Organization: HTE

In article <1992Aug25.213006.5075@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu*, dmjones@theory.lcs.mit.edu (David M. Jones) writes:
* In article <2878@fedfil.UUCP>, news@fedfil (news) writes:
* >In article <1992Aug25.014027.19210@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu*, dmjones@theory.lcs.mit.edu (David M. Jones) writes:
 
* >*Um, someone correct me if I've missed something, but hasn't Ted
* >*traditionally maintained that the first humans were white and the
* >*"large volumes of energy" were responsible for the origins of
* >*dark-skinned people?

* >Allow me to correct you, since you have missed something.  
 
* Thank you.  I did indeed misremember your claims.
 
* >To the best of my
* >knowledge, and this comes from a number of James Strickling's papers, my 
 
* Could you list some specific papers by Strickling that the interested
* reader can go to for more details?  Journals and approximate years
* should be enough.

The Winter 1986 issue of the Kronos Journal contained the article "The Races
of Homo Sapiens", which is the main article and the one I managed to save all 
this time.  I don't what your chances of finding that would be.  Likewise
with Strickling's book "Origins", which I would like to have a copy of but
have never found.  Some of this later-day catastrophist stuff is rare.
 
* > and that one or other of
* >the white and black races is almost assuredly an even more recent offshoot
* >of the other.   To my thinking at least, antique literature makes it fairly
* >clear as to which way that last detail worked.
* 
* With the black evolving from the white, you mean?

I'm afraid so.  Louis Ginzberg's 7-volume "Legends of the Jews", volume 1
contains as good an account as you'll find.  Again, these people described
the world in their terms, their language and not ours.  They did not
comprehend genetic mutation, catastrophic evolution etc.  They were 
completely at home with the concept of a curse.
* 
* David M. Jones                              "Trifles! Trifles light as air!"
* dmjones@theory.lcs.mit.edu                              -- the Hystricide

Aunt Ester:  "...Why child, when I was born, mah body was blessed by MOTHER
NATURE!"

Fred Sanford: "...An as you got older, yo face was cursed by FATHER TIME..."


-- 
Ted Holden
HTE

Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: keithd@well.sf.ca.us (Keith Doyle)
Subject: Re: Vestigial organs
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 02:57:31 GMT



Dave Fisher writes:
>I'm looking for a source of detailed information about "jury-rigged"
>adaptations, vestigial organs, and the like.  I was considering reading
>Darwin's book on Orchids... anyone have a better suggestion?

I know of several individual examples, one of my favorites is the
chapter "Nasty Habits" in "The Flight of the Iguana" by David Quammen.
He describes the bedbug Xylocaris Maculipennis and how it has adapted a
curious way of reproduction, that of homosexual stabbing rape.  Apparently
some of the various bedbug species make use of a "mating plug" where once
a male has mated with a female, the male "seals her shut" preventing
other males from mating with her.  Some species have adapted around
this by stabbing rape, where the male impales the female and bypasses
the mating plug.  In Xylocaris Maculipennis, this has been taken one
step further, where the male will impale and inseminate other males,
and the rapist's genes enter the bloodstream to be carried to
females by the victim.  In this way, the rapist concieves by proxy.

And of course there are other examples, "The Panda's Thumb" by Gould
is one of the classics by now, and I expect you'll hear about others.

Keith
From: jjh00@outs.ccc.amdahl.com (Joel J. Hanes)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Logic and God (was: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Date: 27 Aug 92 22:22:38 GMT
Reply-To: jjh00@OUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Joel J. Hanes)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA


  lawson@aldia.UUCP (Drew Lawson) writes:
>
>You will note that I have never stated that creation is a scientific
>hypothesis.

Then why in the name of Finagle is this discussion taking place
on talk.origins?

If you're only discussing the cosmology  and
teleology of your _religious_beliefs_, few of the
talk.origins regulars should have much to say besides
"That's nice.  Please take it to talk.religion.misc."

Science isn't a way of knowing TRUTH, it's a way of coming
up with useful models of the universe that are both internally
consistent, and consistent with all the evidence of
repeatable experiment.  It's a way of making useful predictions
of the outcome of experiments that we haven't yet performed.

Science predicts that if I dig down to bedrock in Shellrock
County, Iowa, I'll find in the rock types of fossils that
are always dated to the Devonian.
If you aren't interested in such evidence and prediction,
if you're not propounding creation as a scientific
theory, consistent with the physical evidence,
then please debate your theological points elsewhere.

I'm not trying to be rude; I'm pointing out that this
newsgroup is not primarily a forum for the discussion of theology.

---
Joel Hanes
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker)
Subject: Re: Proof: God wrote the Bible
Reply-To: Hallam@zeus02.desy.de
Organization: Deutsches Elektronen Synchrotron, Experiment ZEUS bei HERA
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 22:18:43 GMT

In article <1992Aug31.144401.14730@klaava.Helsinki.FI>,
cust_ts@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Tero Sand) writes:
|>Lines: 7

Hey folks a 7! This must be the second comming!

|>How is this proof of ANYTHING, except that whoever cooked up the bible
|>(God or otherwise) had 7 on his/her/its brain?

The use of 7 as a mystical number dates back to the Greeks as does the use of a
seven day week. The day off bit is however traceable to Judaism (well as fas as
anyone knoweth). The number probably derives from the number of planets (pluto
was not known then). To understand the importance of astrology you must realise
that in the days before TV was invented, nocturnal persuits were limited to
bonking and looking up at the stars. Thus people had quite a lot of time to
consider the paths of the stars etc, the wandering gods progress was quite well
observed.

The repetition of the number 7 in the Bible is quite deliberate and is to this
day a feature of Judaism with the seven branched candlestick standing as the
emblem of both judaism and the Israeli state.

What all this is meant to prove though I haven't the foggiest.

--

Phill Hallam-Baker
Newsgroups: talk.origins,alt.atheism
From: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Subject: worthless comic strips
Keywords: creationist propaganda
Reply-To: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 19:38:47 GMT

   Week ago Sunday I was reading the paper and enjoying my coffee when I
noticed the comic strip B.C. (by J. Hart) had Wiley doing a poem that said (my
paraphrase) "The world just got here by accident.  Right.  Suuurrre".  Since
this is a standard creationist line I started paying attention and sure enough,
one of the daily strips was Wiley doing a poem about prayer in schools.  He was
bitchiong that the establishment clause of the first amendment didn't contain
the phrase "wall of seperation between church and state" and deducing that that
notion had, as a result, no constitutional weight.

   Leaving aside the fact that both these points of view require one to ignore
all sorts of relevant information, does anyone else have examples of creationist
or evangelical propaganda on the comics pages?  How long has B.C.
been pulling this stuff?

   PLEASE EDIT YOUR NEWSGROUPS LINE.  I CROSSPOSTED THIS TO TALK.ORIGINS AND
ALT.ATHEISM.

Dan
Danwell@IASTATE.EDU
From: mls@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (mike.siemon)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: The rise of consciousness
Summary: coevolution of consciousness and language
Keywords: brain,evolution,consciousness
Date: 1 Sep 92 16:20:36 GMT
Organization: AT&T

In article <87566@netnews.upenn.edu>, weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu
(Matthew P Wiener) writes:

> I find quite plausible is that the rise of language is a necessary precursor
> to our human sense of consciousness.  Brain-language coevolution selects for
> more accurate communication and ends up with self-awareness on the side.

Edelman would agree that there is a coevolution here, but put the self-
awareness as emerging in a primitive way prelinguistically, as a result
of reentrancy between perceptual/conceptual mapping regions and time-
related, cyclical processes.  The construction of primary consciousnes
(before the appearance of self-awareness) involves the linking in parallel
of multiple sensory systems via a presentation of the specific memory
recategorization activies of the individual systems to a nexus of con-
nections among the whole lot (his "Remembered Present") -- We then go
up one level of rentrancy so that time-based memory *also* gets presented
along with the "scene."  It's at about this point that language becomes
possible and also starts driving the active "recognition system" being
built in the individual brain.

-- 
Michael L. Siemon		The Son of Man has come eating and drinking;
				and you say "Behold, a glutton and a drunkard,
mls@usl.com			a friend of tax collectors and sinners."  And
standard disclaimer		yet, Wisdom is justified by all her children.
Newsgroups: talk.origins,sci.skeptic