HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rlg@omni (Randy garrett)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Duane T. Gish, Ph. D.
Date: 25 Jan 1993 17:59:21 GMT
Organization: IDA, Alexandria, VA
NNTP-Posting-Host: omni.ida.org
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

: 
: >Few of the claims that Gish makes are difficult to descredit because
: >they are so absurd.  However, a few I've had difficulty locating
: >information on in my home library.  ...
: 

Gish regularly debates pretty well educated opponents and they
don't seem to find it quite so easy to cite specific counterexamples.


: I don't think that you'll be able to find anything to directly refute
: this, partly because the premise is so ludicrous.  I don't suppose
: that Gish has a source for his "According to..." statement, hmmm?
: Where on earth could you find someone who would make a claim like
: that?  And would any old invertebrate do, or did he have one of them
: in mind?

ICR is pretty precise about quoting references, so I'll bet someone
did say this in print.  You may be right in saying that the quote
is absurd, but I have seen some pretty absurd things in respected
journals and texts myself.

: >CLAIM #2:  "Darwin cited the giraffe as an outstanding example of
: >natural selection.  Supposedly, as a result of extended droughts, the
: >supply of green leaves could be obtained only at the top of the trees,
: >and therefore the shorter necked giraffe died off.  And the giraffes
: >which grew longer necks survived.  However, there is no evidence
: >whatever in the fossil record or elsewhere that giraffes with short
: >necks have ever existed.
: 
: If you ever meet Mr. Gish, please tell him to visit some zoos and look
: for an animal called an okapi.  You don't need a fossil record when
: the organism in question still exists.
: 

I don't believe the claim is that no animals with short necks
exist (my own neck, for example), just that no intermediate
length neck giraffes, or their direct ancestors, are known.
Unless you are claiming that okapis are direct ancestors?
From: lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun)
Subject: Re: Duane T. Gish, Ph. D.
Organization: City University, London
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 93 16:33:44 GMT

In article <1993Jan25.213222.25537@spectrum.xerox.com> chris@eso.mc.xerox.com writes:
>In article 16938@city.cs, lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun) writes:
>>The fossil record for intermediates is sparse or non existent
>>per se. There is a good reason for this.
>
>Well, Lionel, I'll bite.  What is this reason?

Take your pick:
1. Intermediates existed but strangely left no fossils.
2. Intermediates did not exist.

I choose the simpler and more credible explanation.

--
  ________  Lionel Tun, lionel@cs.city.ac.uk  ________
 / /_  __/\       Computer Vision Group      /\ \__  _\
/___/_/_/\/ City University, London EC1V 0HB \ \___\_\_\
\___\_\_\/        071-477 8000 ext 3889       \/___/_/_/
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: ford@hpmcaa.mcm.hp.com.mcm.hp.com (Dan Ford)
Subject: Come on Mr. Johnson
Organization: HP Cardiology Business Unit - McMinnville, OR
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL7]
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 17:52:44 GMT

  It would be greatly appreciated by many on this group if you would take the
time to carry on a two sided conversation with *someone* other than yourself.
I think that many of us  would like to see you respond seriously to Chris
Colby.  Clearly you can't respond to everybody, or you would get nothing else
done.  But in the interest of honor, and integrity, I believe it is encumbent
on you to dialog with Chris (or Matt if you like).

  You may not be aware of this, but a common behavior observed on this group,
is for someone to appear posting several long discourses (often just articles
or chapters from some book which have been transcribed for the purpose of 
posting to this group), and then to ignore all responses or questions.  My
rhetorical question for you is:  do you believe this to be a useful behavior?
Is this what you mean by an objective and honest discussion of the facts?

Waiting hopefully,
Dan Ford

Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu (scharle)
Subject: Re: uniformitarianism doesn't rule out catastrophes
Reply-To: scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu (scharle)
Organization: Univ. of Notre Dame
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 12:58:25 GMT

In article <1765@tdat.teradata.COM>, swf@tools3teradata.com (Stan Friesen) writes:
    ...
|> The epistemically *correct* formulation - the only one that can be defended as
|> a valid assumption, nay, a necessary assumption, of science - is the much weaker
|> formulation that the physical laws that describe the processes operating in
|> nature have not changed over the past.
    ...
|> -- 
|> sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
|>   or
|> Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com

    Isn't it true that certain laws of uniformitarianism, so to speak,
are mathematically equivalent to corresponding conservation laws?
For example, that the universe is the same over all locations in space 
(isotopy?) is equivalent to the conservation of energy, or that 
uniformity over time is equivalent to conservation of ...?  Or are we
talking about completely different things?

-- 
Tom Scharle                |scharle@irishmvs(Bitnet)
Room G003 Computing Center |scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu(Internet)
University of Notre Dame  Notre Dame, IN 46556-0539 USA
From: David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: SWAA Lecture
X-Sender: newtout 0.06 Jan  3 1993
Date: 25 Jan 93  08:17:02

In article <1jelm6$ejh@agate.berkeley.edu>
philjohn@garnet.berkeley.edu (Phillip Johnson) writes:
 
> The anti-Darwinian evolutionary theory of Grasse provides an
> interesting contrast to the orthodox Anglo-American Darwinism
> of e.g., Chris Colby's FAQ.
 
Mr. Johnson, I find your specious and gratuitous characterization
of "Darwinism," (which is the word you use to mean "Mr. Johnson's 
poor and rather confused idea about what evolutionary theory is")
as "Anglo-American" to be inane obfuscation designed to decieve
the ignorant by saying one thing while writing another. This is
par for the course in a court room (deception without lying is the
mark of a effective lawyer), but it is worthless in the scientific
arena. (And you did it without blinking. Damn, you're good!)
 
Are you asserting a racial slur, or implying one of Mr. Colby?
 
Do you consider the theories of planetary motion "Greco-Roman" or
orthodox "Italian?" Is there such a thing as culturally-defined
bullistics? (Trajectory particles, not the bull-tossing Mr. Holden
entertains us with.) Do the laws of physics change from culture to
culture? Do the facts recognize cultural and national borders.
 
Is Evolutionary Theory an imperialistic conspiracy by the white
Anglo-American power-drunk scientists like Colby, with unguessed-of
intentions?
 
Or is it the way reality is, and the rest of the world will just
have to deal with it as best they can, and who gives a shit who
quantified the theory?
From: jsanders@phys.ksu.edu (Justin M. Sanders)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Topic for Discussion?
Date: 27 Jan 1993 14:33:06 GMT
Organization: Department of Physics, Kansas State University, Manhattan KS, USA
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: bohr.phys.ksu.edu

In article <1k5cffINNc6s@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
>In article <1993Jan26.083653.9970@smds.com>, rh@smds.com (Richard Harter) writes:
>|>
>|> But, in the case of life as we know it, you haven't made your case
>|> as far as I can see.  For any genome, either there are some environments
>|> in which organisms having that genome are viable, or there are no
>|> such environments.  [Or do I have a false dichotomy? :-)]  Now it
>|> it at least logically possible that one could actually determine
>|> which genomes were potentially viable and which were not, and that
>|> genomes when restricted by potential viability formed disjoint bounded
>|> sets.
>
>Now you are back to particular genomes.    Showing that in fact a
>particular genome got itself into the state where further
>micro-evolutionary changes led to non-viability is what I would
>expect.  However, I don't expect that to be the case for all genomes.

I guess the creationist claim would be that ALL "kinds" start off in 
states isolated by non-viable nodes-- there is no need for a particular
genome to "get itself" into such a state, since all genomes start off in
such a state.

You (Jon) in that case would have to argue that there exists at least
one viable path connecting two "kinds" (where "kind" is some pair of 
taxa that you and the creationist agree are distinct).

--
Justin M. Sanders    "As the grandest mill in the world will not
Dept. of Physics      extract wheat-flour from peascods, so pages
Kansas State Univ.    of formulae will not get a definite result
Manhattan, KS         from loose data."  -- T.H. Huxley
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: russpj@microsoft.com (Russ Paul-Jones)
Subject: Re: Topic for Discussion?
Date: 28 Jan 93 18:41:42 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1k66f2INNqdh@moe.ksu.ksu.edu> jsanders@phys.ksu.edu (Justin M. Sanders) writes:
>
>You (Jon) in that case would have to argue that there exists at least
>one viable path connecting two "kinds" (where "kind" is some pair of 
>taxa that you and the creationist agree are distinct).

Isn't this graph notion a little ridiculous, at least from a practical 
standpoint?  I mean, I don't think we know exactly what the nodes are 
(possible, viable species?) or the edges ("small enough" steps between 
species?).  And we're nowhere near being able to define either of those 
terms.  Yes, as a visual aid to explain that either we are all connected 
by edges of this sort or we're not, great, but not as arguments for 
either side.

Yes, I would be very pleased with a demonstration of a series of steps 
linking the DNA of a duck with a weasel, each step being "small enough"
and each intermediate instance of DNA being able to produce a viable 
critter in at least one environment.  Unfortunately, this exercise 
would not establish that that change had indeed happened, or that it 
could for any other pair of critters.  Even if Jon could show that 
each intermediate critter was viable and relatively successful 
(moreso than it's immediate DNA neighbors, say) for the environment 
he could prove existed at the time the critter was around (much more 
difficult), he would still not have shown that that sequence happened.

So, perhaps for the time being the "limits of micro-evolution" will remain 
a loud dispute between those who see no limits and those who can't be 
convinced of the non-existence of those limits.  But there are indirect 
methods.

Competing theories of macro-evolution must be judged on their power in 
predicting what we do observe.  Macro-evolution has a wealth of data from 
many areas:  morpholigical studies of existing species, the fossil record, 
genetic data, etc.  Establish the claims of the competing theories, and 
examine the evidence for support or denial of these claims.
 
>--
>Justin M. Sanders    "As the grandest mill in the world will not
>Dept. of Physics      extract wheat-flour from peascods, so pages
>Kansas State Univ.    of formulae will not get a definite result
>Manhattan, KS         from loose data."  -- T.H. Huxley

-Russ Paul-Jones
russpj@microsoft.com
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: ljones@utkvx3.utk.edu (Where UT leads, others will follow.)
Subject: Nature Center Needs Trophies, Skulls, and Skins
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: University of Tennessee Computing Center
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 02:56:00 GMT

Hello all!

     Ijams Nature Center in Knoxville, Tennessee needs animal
trophies, skulls and skins. Pam Petko-Seus, our wildlife biologist,
needs them for outreach programs at local schools. They will also
be used in our museum.

     Ijams was established by the Audobon Society on property
willed by the Ijams family. The center leads school groups
on educational trips on the property on most days of the school
year. Wildlife biologist Pam Petko-Sues travels to area schools
to teach children about wildlife. There is a museum and a
pavillion where UT professors and area naturalists give talks.
Ijams is a tax-exempt nonprofit organization.

     We are asking for trophies, skulls, and skins of animals native
to eastern North America north of Mexico. Until we build our new
nature center, we will not have space for exotic species. Specimens 
should already be prepared, as we can't afford to take specimens
to a taxidermist. We especially need a mounted male mallard and 
any native predators.

     Contributors will receive the Ijams newsletter and the satisfaction
of helping a good cause.

     Send me email describing any specimens you would like to
contribute and I will send you Ijams address.

Thanks!
Leslie Jones
Ijams naturalist
From: cotera@woods.ulowell.edu
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Has Macro-evolution Occured?
Date: 25 Jan 93 19:58:53 GMT
Organization: University of Lowell

In article <1993Jan23.233659.24533@microsoft.com>, russpj@microsoft.com (Russ Paul-Jones) writes: 
> Human embryos develop gill-slits at an early stage, later to lose them.

It's my understanding that evolutionists no longer view this as evidence for
evolution.
--Ray Cote
From: rlg@omni (Randy garrett)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Who is Christian - a simple answer
Date: 25 Jan 1993 17:43:42 GMT
Organization: IDA, Alexandria, VA
NNTP-Posting-Host: omni.ida.org
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

: You appear to have neglected the possibility that he sincerely
: believed he was divine, but was mistaken.    That makes him a
: person in error, not a liar.    It also makes him no hypocrite,
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

This is a good argument and I agree with many of your points.
There are indeed many people walking around today claiming to
be divine, whom I would not characterize as crazy (Looney, yes;
clinically crazy, probably not).

: 
: That only shows how silly *you* are.   If someone says we are to
: forgive our enemies, and also holds some nutty theological ideas,
: you're going to "put no credence" in forgiving your enemies?
: 

And even clocks that are stopped have the right time twice
a day (provided they're not on military time).  Anyone can
accidentally be right.  The problem is, why should I believe
what they say.  Since a large portion of Jesus's pronouncements
are predicated on His divinity, He may (as you say) be accidentally
right from time to time, but how can I know which times are right
and which aren't.  To go back to the myriad of people claiming
to be divine, and also making lots of concommitant claims as a
result -- I don't pay much attention to them either.  Maybe,
you're right and I am just being silly ...

: 
: |> 
: |> Or 
: |>   We're in a heap of trouble if what He claimed was true ...
: 
: You mean you can speak for him?   Now who's the nut?

Only in the respect that I can repeat what is said in the Bible.
This appears to be the most reliable source of what Jesus says.
From: skroger@zeus.calpoly.edu (Seth L. Kroger)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Voyagers on the Ark of Noah
Date: 26 Jan 93 16:58:52 GMT
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo

cotera@woods.ulowell.edu writes:
>In article <1993Jan12.202852.12010@anasazi.com>, scott@anasazi.com (Scott Gibson) writes: 
>> So, if plants, fish, and insects could have survived, then so could
>> many other "kinds" of life.  Why the ark?
>
>How would, say, cats, dogs, people, apes, zebras, pigs, and just about any
>other animal, survive without being able to breath?  The flood waters were much

Then how could insects survive for a year without breathing.  Most of them
are land creatures themselves.

>higher than the highest mountain.  So no animal (or at least most) could float
>on the surface for a year.  They'd fatigue quickly.  Furthermore, they wouldn't
>have any food.
>--Ray Cote


|======================================================================|
| Seth Kroger                       "If God made us in His image we    |
| skroger@oboe.calpoly.edu              have certianly returned the    |
| Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo             compliment."  -Voltaire        |
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: btd@iastate.edu (Benjamin T Dehner)
Subject: Re: Theory of evolution - doomed
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 19:25:27 GMT

In <1993Jan28.165939.1594@city.cs> lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun) writes:

>It seems to me that the theory of evolution is suffering
>severe setbacks here and may soon be entirely in ruins,
>being bashed down under the onslaught of pure logic and
>powerful science.

	Fortunately, neither your opinions nor your snide comments are
relevant to the future of evolution or science in general.  (No, they are not
seperate.)  Why don't you contribute something positive, like, say, a theory
of creation?

Ben

>  ________  Lionel Tun, lionel@cs.city.ac.uk  ________
> / /_  __/\       Computer Vision Group      /\ \__  _\
>/___/_/_/\/ City University, London EC1V 0HB \ \___\_\_\
>\___\_\_\/        071-477 8000 ext 3889       \/___/_/_/


-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin T. Dehner    Dept. of Physics and Astronomy 
btd@iastate.edu       Iowa State University 
                      Ames, IA 50011
From: philjohn@garnet.berkeley.edu (Phillip Johnson)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Ideology and Indoctrination
Date: 28 Jan 1993 15:30:48 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: garnet.berkeley.edu


Chris Colby writes: "The moth example is, by definition,
evolution. There are few studies that document it in as clear cut
a manner as Kettlewell's work. You don't understand evolution." 
...

"Please explain how natural selection is a creative process.
Selection is differential reproductive success of classes of pre-
existing genetic variants. This (often, but not always) results
in a change  in frequency of genetic variants in a population.
Where is the creativity? You don't understand natural selection."
[End of quote.]

That natural selection is not a "creative process" is exactly my
point.  That is why it does not explain the fantastic growth in
the complexity of the genetic program needed to govern the
biological processes of plants and animals.  If the peppered moth
example is "by definition, evolution," then evolution is not a
very important subject.  The important question is how relatively
simple forms like bacteria become far more complex forms like
plants and animals.  If the peppered moth example explains this
also "by definition," then what you call evolutionary science is
nothing more impressive than the manipulation of definitions.

BTW, I was teaching a seminar yesterday, with a critique of the TV
version of The Blind Watchmaker.  All about the vast *creative*
power of natural selection, quite a contrast with the Colby
doctrine.  And yes, I know all about cumulative selection.  See
my summary of the doctrine of creative natural selection at the
BEGINNING of Chapter Two of Darwin on Trial:  "As the process of
differential survival continues, the trait eventually spreads
throughout the species, and it may become the basis for further
*cumulative* improvements in succeeding generations.  Given
enough time, and *sufficient mutations of the right sort,*
enormously complex organs and patterns of adaptive behavior can
eventually be produced in tiny *cumulative* steps, without the
assistance of any pre-existing intelligence." P. 17

Of course, to me that's a hypothesis, not a dogma to be
propounded.  And the problems with the mutation component are the
subject of Chapter 3.  You seem determined to obscure the issues
in word games.  No wonder.

-- 
Phillip E. Johnson
  School of Law, University of California, Berkeley CA 94720
From: lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Who is Christian - a simple answer
Date: 25 Jan 93 00:23:00 GMT
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1jv8amINNokc@morrow.stanford.edu>, salem@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Bruce Salem) writes...
>In article <1jpnkmINN272@dmsoproto.ida.org> rlg@omni (Randy garrett) writes:
>>It seems to me that C.S. Lewis's Lord, Liar,
>>or Lunatic argument holds a lot of logical validity:  
>>
>>If Jesus were not divine, then given His clear claims, He must have
>>been the greatest Liar who ever lived as well as the greatest
>>hypocrite since He condemned very strongly the smallest lies.
>>So, I certainly wouldn't want to have anything to do with the
>>teachings of someone like that.

Liar, lunatic, or lord is clearly a false trilemma--you've forgotten
about misinterpreted, misunderstood, or misquoted.

Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
From: swf@tools3teradata.com (Stan Friesen)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Reality and the Merrit FAQ (2 of 4)
Date: 26 Jan 93 19:39:01 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <237@fedfil.UUCP>, news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
|> ^  To avoid this you must either correct the
|> ^errors or provide acceptible evidence that your material is not in error.
|> 
|> I have provided such evidence over and over again, and adequately refuted all
|> of the counterclaims being made by yourself and others.  Nonetheless, you and
|> others simply go on posting the same tired old rubbish;  obviously, by your
|> own standards, you and a number of the others are lairs.

No, you have just repeated the "evidence" that we had just got done refuting.
You need to provide *new* evidence, that is relevent to the matter at hand.
[The closest I have seen to this are some of the posts on isochron dating].

-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: lindsay+@cs.cmu.edu (Donald Lindsay)
Subject: Gill Slits
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 20:36:42 GMT

cotera@woods.ulowell.edu writes:
>In article <1993Jan23.233659.24533@microsoft.com>, russpj@microsoft.com (Russ Paul-Jones) writes: 
>> Human embryos develop gill-slits at an early stage, later to lose them.
>
>It's my understanding that evolutionists no longer view this as evidence for
>evolution.

I think you've misunderstood.

Yes, the phrase "recapitulation" has dropped out of favor. That's
because the embryo does not *become* a fish, which that word implied.

However, the fact that mammals have the genetics left from their
ancestors of 100+ million years ago, is revealed by the steps an
embryo takes. There is no rational explanation for much of biology
(make that *most* of biology) if you take away the idea of common
descent. Why should all mammals be so alike in ways that are useless
to them? 

It isn't just gill slits. When you get into the biochemistry, there
are thousands of "coincidences" that the non-Darwinian must explain.



-- 
Don		D.C.Lindsay	Carnegie Mellon Computer Science
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: isaak@aurora.com (Mark Isaak)
Subject: Re: Ideology and Indoctrination
Reply-To: isaak@aurora.com (Mark Isaak)
Organization: The Aurora Group
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 93 18:37:37 GMT

In article <1k0tpu$5mp@agate.berkeley.edu> philjohn@garnet.berkeley.edu (Phillip Johnson) writes:
>An excellent example is the standard Darwinist delusion that the
>peppered moth example illustrates "evolution" in any non-trivial
>sense.

I'm glad you think the principle of natural selection is trivial.
Now, if you think the same of random mutation and genetic drift,
you have all but accepted the theory of evolution.

>It is pathetic to see advanced biology
>students (or faculty members) say that natural selection does not
>have to be "the least bit creative" to be "the primary mechanism
>responsible for bringing about, from a single common ancestor,
>all of the species on earth  and their phenotypic features." 

Does the word "creative" mean anything when you use it?
-- 
Mark Isaak           "Every generation thinks it has the answers, and every
isaak@aurora.com      generation is humbled by nature." - Philip Lubin
Newsgroups: talk.origins