HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Dr.Pepper@f241.n103.z1.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Challenge to Creationists
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Sep 21 1992
Date: 26 Sep 92  02:21:00

 > From: mannk@fshvmfk1.VNET.IBM.COM (Ken Mann)
 > Message-ID: 19920924.130405.537@almaden.ibm.com

 >>Creationists:  what will you do with your academic term?  What will
 >>you present?  What theories?  What evidence?  And how can you do it
 >>without referring to evolution?  Keep in mind that to say you
 >>are going to use your term to attack evolution is totally unacceptable.
 >>If you want equal time for creationism, then you teach creationism.
 >>You have, let us say, three months of teaching time to fill up.
 >>What are you going to put in it?

 > Now this is an excellent challenge!  And very fair.
 > I believe it is possible to do this without attacking, or even
 > mentioning evolution.

 > If I were to accept this challenge, would you allow me to
 > include the Bible as one of my texts?

Only as far as it is supported by observation.

But first: Please state the theory of creationism.

+--------------------------+--------------------------------------+
| 10                    2  | Garden Grove Institute of Technology |
|        DR PEPPER         | Community Outreach Center            |
|                       4  |                                      |
+--------------------------+ Snail Addr: Unit #1, 7872 Trask      |
| The best thing about     |             Westminster, Ca  92683   |
| voting Republican is it  | Modem:      714-894-7039             |
| feels so good when you   | Fidonet:    1:103/241                |
| stop.                    | Candynet:   42:1001/1                |
|                          | Internet:   Dr.Pepper@f241.n103.z1   |
|                          |              .fidonet.org            |
+--------------------------+--------------------------------------+

---
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Here we go again (answer
Date: 27 Sep 92  18:59:00 EST

Since you seem to be in touch with the subject, I have a question. I just read seven books on evolution/creationism and two were biographies of Darwin.  In the books there is constant talk about how Darwin's  5-year voyage produced specimens that were periodically shipped back to England.  The scientists of the early 1800's were able to look at preserved specimens and determine that they were or were not the same species.  I thought that the test for species is whether or not two mammals, for instance, cou
ld reproduce and have fertile offspring.

The example often cited is that a donkey and a horse are not the same species and while they can mate and produce offspring, the offspring (mule) is sterile and always female.

How did these scientists determine species?

Thanks.

 * Origin: Aether (1:112/2020)

Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Subject: Re: Antti dodges reality (take two)
Organization: University of Joensuu
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 12:14:28 GMT

colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby) writes:
>>	No, I was told that they're defined just by morphology. 

>Then you were told wrong. They do not interbreed, the two new species
>(one of which arose three independent times!) have different numbers of
>chromosomes and do not produce fertile offspring. Once again, you
>are only proving how astoundingly ignorant you are and the lengths
>you will go to avoid learning anything about biology.

	Am I responsible if I was told wrong ? Still I'm suspicious and want to
	stick with living evidence. 

	Saying that I'm ignorant doesn't make you to look any smarter, although
	it is what you are aiming to.  

>PS Got those "wedge leading birds suffer higher mortality" references
>dug up yet? It's only been weeks since you've made the claim.

	Look Tarttu P|llimajandus~likooli archives, 1988 or before. Also 
	the zool. mus. of Leningrad can give you information. Also 
	"Linki ptitsi vorybenniij v severo-zapade SSSR" by Leningrad 
	University can give you some information, though concerning only
	passerine moulting times (which is important in order to understand
	the migration). 

	Never it's said straight, but you get the idea if you go through the
	data and think its applications. Also you can contact the ornithological
	stations of P{rnu, Kabli, Rossitten and Gdansk, they have field-      
	knowledge. 

	Also you can get good photos of migratory wedges and do your own 
	decisions. 

>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"

-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint

	No ITU, love, evolution.           Tuusniemi ! Siis imein suut !
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: a clarification from Ted?
Date: 5 Oct 92 22:49:15 GMT
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks

In article <55@fedfil.UUCP>, news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
> No light, and no land to live on.  Think about it.  All the land was in
> one place, Pangaea, anmd all the land was directly under whatever had
> pulled it all into one place, the which location coincided with the
> North magnetic pole, since the whole thing was electromagnetic.

  What "whole thing"?  Are you saying that the continents were magnitized
together?

> Only a fish with a love of darkness would have been living in the southern
> hemisphere.

  There are plenty of them now.  (Cave fish)

> Naturally, given such conditions, magnetic and geological poles were
> the same.

  This does not seem natural to me.  Can you explain your reasoning?

 |  __L__   *******************************
-|-  ___    * Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub   *
 |  | o |   * kv07@iastate.edu            *
 |/ `---'   * Iowa State University       *
/|   ___    * Math Department             *
 |  |___|   * 400 Carver Hall             *
 |  |___|   * Ames, IA  50011             *
 J  _____   *******************************
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Back to "Bales' scales"
Date: 29 Sep 92 18:18:54 GMT
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA

In article <7082@tekig7.PEN.TEK.COM> bobb@tekig1.PEN.TEK.COM (Robert W Bales) writes:
}
}Jim Meritt writes, regarding one of my postings:
}
}>Your lies are on record, don't worry.  How about:
}
}This appears as if what follows will be a lie that I have told. . . .

It appears to be the case that you cannot discern between a statement,
a question, and a lie.  That would explain much.
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: adpeters@sunflower.bio.indiana.edu (Andy Peters)
Subject: Re: Real issues for Antti
Organization: Program in Evolution, Ecology, and Behavior, Indiana University
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 01:30:53 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.184816.19315@cs.joensuu.fi> asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
>adpeters@sunflower.bio.indiana.edu (Andy Peters) writes:
>>Heck, Antti's already failed this one.  He's used the phrase "survival
>>of the fittest" several times.
>
>	I'm sorry, but my English is not good in this area :( 

Actually, I think it's fine.  "Survival of the fittest" is a standard 
misimpression which many uninformed people have of evolution (reminds
me of the story about the molecular biologist who, in a discussion of
whether evolution should be a required class for biology majors, said
something to the effect of "Evolution...I mean, it's important, and I
believe in it and all, but can you really teach a whole _class_ on that
stuff?"), and I suspect that you share that misimpression.  I suspect
that your problem is in comprehension of a concept, not expression of
it in a foreign language.

- biology is more
>	East European science than Anglo-American. 

This reminds me of a conversation I had with a friend of mine, who
is an ornithologist and is applying for postdoctoral positions all
over the place.  He mentioned he had applied to work with someone
in Finland, and I mentioned my exchanges with Antti.  Sorry, Antti,
he'd never heard of you; I told him you claimed to be an ornithologist
and a great biologist.  He laughed, and said, "everyone in Finland's
an ornithologist; there's nothing else to do there."

Just a story.

>>Briefly describe
>>>at least four independent lines of evidence which support it.
>
>>Here we go, asking those Marxist questions again :-P
>
>	Hahaa, you found the point !

Yeah, does it bother you to be so ploddingly predictable?

Now, how about that definition of natural selection?  You lose credibility,
the appearance of sincerity, and even comic relief value every time you
evade questions like this.

>		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
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: bobsarv@microsoft.com (Bob Sarver)
Subject: Re: New Evidence for Creation!
Date: 03 Oct 92 01:40:59 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.



/(ran)
/A new scientific study has now given us the data to show that the
/creation certainly occurred after 33,000 BC and strong evidence
/shows that it probably occurred in 5386 BC.

Do tell . . .



/(ran)
/This pretty well points
/to the fact that, just as maximum lifespan of humans has been declining
/since the Fall (c.g. Methuselah--Gen 5:27), so has average body temperature.

No, all it points to is the fact that the average body temperature has
changed.  

It does not say what the av. body temperature was 500 years
ago, nor does it predict what it will be in the middle of the next
century.  You need more than one data point for that.

Other possible explanations include:  medical advances, changes in 
diet, shortened lifespan may be _causing_ the av. body temp. to drop;
sampling rural people may be different from city dwellers, etc.
Insufficient information to go running off and formulating grandiose
theories on.




(ran)
/Surely, body temperature could never have been above the boiling
/point of water.  This equation shows that body temperature would
/of been 212 degrees in 33286 BC, so it is clear that the creation must
/of occurred after that date.  

Actually, no.  The incredible fallacy in your thinking is that you ar a
assuming that any temperature loss had to follow a linear progression.  

So far, there is:

a)  no evidence that this change has been present over the long term
    and is not a one-time occurrence;

b)  no evidence that this change only occurs in one direction; it may
    oscillate over the centuries, varying from 98.0 to 98.8, for example,
    in a complex sine-wave-type pattern;

c)  and, there is no evidence that, if human av. body temperatures are
    indeed falling, that such a decline is following a strict linear
    progression, and not something displaying behavior similar to the 
    graph of 1/x.


(ran)
/We can better pin down the date
/for creation by considering the perfection of God.  What better
/evidence of the flawlessness of his Plan than to create humans with
/body temperature exactly midway between the boiling and freezing
/points of water: 122 degrees F.  

Do you have any evidence for this?  Or is this just guessing, working
backwards from some idea of God's perfection, and guessing at what
the human temperature might have been?

All of our brains would have baked at that temperature, I just want
to point out.



(ran)
/The above equation shows that
/this occurred in 5386 BC, in remarkable agreement with other estimates
/for the time of the Fall.

Actually, no.  If Bishop Usher's calculations are correct, and the world
was created in 4004 BC, then you are approximately 1400 years off.


/(ran)
/Maybe this will finally silence the unbelievers.

Oh, yes.  I am sure the laughter will rob them of the ability to speak,
at least for awhile.
From: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Real issues for Antti
Date: 30 Sep 92 21:56:14 GMT
Organization: animal -- coelomate -- deuterostome


Andy:
>> (2) Why is Chris's _Tragopogon_ example not speciation?

Antti:
>	I said: Because I don't know anything about their sexual life and 
>	reproduction. One said that they are defined to be different 
>	species by morphology.

They do not interbreed (as it says in my FAQ that you supposedly read). 
Why don't you look up the reference? They are not defined by morphology.
The real world doesn't go away just becuase you ignore it, Antti.

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"
From: lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: self-deceptive belief maintenance
Date: 29 Sep 92 02:12:00 GMT
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

I would like to collect examples of self-deceptive strategies which can
be observed in argument techniques by creationists in order to avoid
being persuaded by anti-creationist arguments.  (Those of you who
are creationists are also welcome to contribute examples of strategies
used by evolutionists to avoid being persuaded by creationist arguments.)
   From the perspective of someone who is a believer in evolution, it
is remarkable that anyone could possibly be both informed and a creationist.
Therefore, the only way in which someone could be presented with evidence
for evolution and continue to be a creationist is by using some kind of
self-deceptive strategy which allows the evidence to be rejected.  One
such strategy (perhaps the most common one) is to ignore the evidence--
refuse to read it, skim it and respond only to tangential points, etc.
Another strategy is to reformulate the opponent's argument as a straw man
which can be easily defeated (e.g., the recent watermelon example posted
here).
   I would like particular, specific examples from published sources or
from this newsgroup.  I'm not sure exactly what I will end up doing with
it, but I'm thinking about various aspects of self-deception for a
dissertation topic.

   Please email me at the below address.  I will summarize to the group
in a few weeks.

Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: amorgan@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Crunchy Frog)
Subject: Re: Methinks it's like a weasel (Blind Watchmaker)
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 01:23:49 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.235515.2439@aurora.com> 
  isaak@aurora.com (Mark Isaak) writes:
>
>Here's another probablility argument on the subject of abiogenesis:
>The odds of atoms arranging themselves into some kind of pattern by
>chance is astronomical, right?  I mean, even if abiogenesis required
>that 10 atoms of type A end up above 10 atoms of type B, the odds
>against that are 1:2^20, or worse than one in a million, right?  So
>if we model this process with, say, pingpong balls and golf balls,
>and throw them at random into a swimming pool, the odds that all the
>pingpong balls end up above all the golf balls is worse than one in
>a million, right?  So I'll wager one dollar of mine against a million
>dollars of yours that the balls will sort like that, and since the
>odds against that happening are so much in your favor, you can expect
>to make money on the deal, and you'll take the bet, right?  Heck,
>I'll even throw in two dollars!  Any takers?

Sure (I know where to get golf balls that float).

>Mark Isaak           "Every generation thinks it has the answers, and every

C Frog
From: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Real issues for Antti
Date: 29 Sep 92 15:57:08 GMT
Organization: University of Joensuu

adpeters@sunflower.bio.indiana.edu (Andy Peters) writes:
>This reminds me of a conversation I had with a friend of mine, who
>is an ornithologist and is applying for postdoctoral positions all
>over the place.  He mentioned he had applied to work with someone
>in Finland, and I mentioned my exchanges with Antti.  Sorry, Antti,
>he'd never heard of you; I told him you claimed to be an ornithologist
>and a great biologist.  He laughed, and said, "everyone in Finland's
>an ornithologist; there's nothing else to do there."

>Just a story.

	Ha, ha ! This was a good one !  :) I liked it. 

	
-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint

	No ITU, love, evolution.           Tuusniemi ! Siis imein suut !
From: isaak@aurora.com (Mark Isaak)
Subject: Re: Creationist CRAPOLA!
Summary: A little crapola of my own
Reply-To: isaak@aurora.com (Mark Isaak)
Organization: The Aurora Group
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 92 19:03:54 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.115509.26590@city.cs>, lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun) writes:
> 1. The water came from the water vapour canopy around the earth.
> 2. The water ended up in the oceans.

As a gift to Creationists, I present the following alternate view of
where the water went.

The water was dissociated to become molecular hydrogen and oxygen.  The
hydrogen, being light, escaped our atmosphere.  The oxygen is still here.
This implies that there was less oxygen before the flood, but this is
consistent with the long lifespans then.  After all, oxygen is highly
corrosive, so it obviously must decrease life expectancies, right?

As to how the atoms in the water became separated--it was apparently done by
the high electromagnetic radiation from Saturn.  Either that, or God did it.
-- 
Mark Isaak           "Every generation thinks it has the answers, and every
isaak@aurora.com      generation is humbled by nature." - Philip Lubin
From: bruce@uxb.liv.ac.uk (Bruce Stephens)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: 10k Christians perform miracles ever so quietly
Date: 6 Oct 92 13:43:47 GMT
	<1992Sep30.120831.28903@city.cs>
	<1992Oct5.115613.22299@dcs.warwick.ac.uk>
	<BRUCE.92Oct5222520@suprenum.uxb.liv.ac.uk>
	<ALANRW.92Oct6083729@cheetah.cs.man.ac.uk>
Followup-To: sci.skeptic
Organization: Centre for Mathematical Software Research, Univ. Liverpool, UK

>>>>> On 6 Oct 92 07:37:29 GMT, alanrw@cs.man.ac.uk (Alan R Williams) said:

> The program was fairly horrific.  The "believers" threw a disabled man
> out of his wheelchair and were generally maltreating him all because he
> insisted that he still could not walk and they claimed that if he had
> faith then he could!  In the end the police had to be called to rescue him.

I thought that was terrible too.  But to be fair, it did seem to be a
very small proportion of the audience; for the most part it was
believers crippling themselves voluntarily by getting up from their
wheelchairs.

Followups set to sci.skeptic
--
Bruce Stephens
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles)
Subject: Re: <None>
Date: Thu, 01 Oct 92 09:47:52 EDT
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor

In article <1992Sep29.222326.4423@desire.wright.edu> sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
>
Trygve,

[...]

>Being insulted by Ted has become a badge of acceptance here!
>
>Sue

 Yeah, I know, and I've never gotten one. :-< I mean, here I go to the
trouble to explain why magnetism just can't do the things Ted wants it
to, and he never insults me for it. I feel neglected.
 Please, Ted, just one insult? (Actually, a post explaining where I was
wrong would be almost as much fun...)

Sincerely,

Ray Ingles                  || The above opinions are probably
                            || not those of the University of
ingles@engin.umich.edu      || Michigan. Yet.
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: bseymour@encore.com (Burch Seymour)
Subject: Re: Uneven felt gravity
Organization: Encore Computer Corporation
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 12:39:14 GMT

news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:

>In the age when the really big sauropods lived, all the land had reduced
>perceived gravity (since it was all pulled up into one place, i.e. under
>the small electromag star we then orbitted, and the majority of the water
>did not.  The southern hemisphere was pretty wet.

Ted,

What, precisely, is an "electromag star". Is our Sun one of these? Can you
give an example of one? 

I believe you always point to Jupiter (or is it Saturn) as being this star
during the antedeluivian times. What caused that star to stop burning?
How do electro-magnetic effects attenuate gravity on essentailly 
non-magnetic things, like animals? 

Several people have shown that for the tidal effects of orbiting near
a star to reduce the "felt effect" to your requirements would:

   A) Heat the Earth to unsurvivable temperatures
   B) Tear the planet apart

and that the subsequent journey to our current orbit would:

   A) Cool the Earth to unsurvivable temperatures
   B) Rip away our atmosphere

Of course this is based on physics. Now is this part of the group of
physics that is elegant and precise and allows us to make microprocessors
and Ginzu Knives? Or is this part of the bullshit liar physics made
popular to billions and billions of zealots by our buddy Carl Sagan?

If it's the former, please explain why we didn't become Toasted Planetoid
Bits (tm) when orbiting the earlier sun. 

If it's the latter, please show your math and explain how all this worked.
Sorry, but "My theory is logical and it hangs together better" is only
proof in your mind. If your theory is as correct and wonderful as you
claim, you should have no trouble presenting mathmatical reasoning.
Ancient myths and legends can corrborate ideas, but not prove them.

-bs-
From: sbishop@desire.wright.edu
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Real issues for Antti
Date: 30 Sep 92 23:07:59 GMT
Organization: Wright State University

In article <1992Sep29.191145.19005@aurora.com>, isaak@aurora.com (Mark Isaak) writes:
> In article <1992Sep28.184330.19054@cs.joensuu.fi> asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
>>isaak@aurora.com (Mark Isaak) writes:
>>>I propose a more basic quiz for Antti:  Accurately state the
>>>theory of evolution by natural selection.  Briefly describe
>>>at least four independent lines of evidence which support it.
>>
>>	Ha ha ! How can I answer such question, when I claim that there are 
>>	no supporting lines of evidence at all !
> 
> I didn't ask whether you agreed with it.  The object is to demonstrate
> that you have some knowledge of the subject you're talking about.
> If you don't know enough about a controversial issue to argue in favor
> of it, you don't know enough to argue against it.
> 
> Answer the questions, or admit you don't know the answers.

Perhaps Antti doesn't realize that most of us in this group can describe
the vast majority of arguments that creationists have proposed.  If he
can't counter with a concise explanation of what is the theory of evolution
then he might as well leave.

Sue

> -- 
> Mark Isaak           "Every generation thinks it has the answers, and every
> isaak@aurora.com      generation is humbled by nature." - Philip Lubin