HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Evolution is false
Date: 17 Aug 92 20:05:00 GMT
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <emc.714056355@keiko>, emc@doe.carleton.ca (Eli Chiprout) writes...
>I wrote:
>>> You can never disprove an axiom.
>(James J. Lippard) writes:
> 
>>Sure you can, if your axioms are inconsistent or contradictory.
> 
>I would answer this in two ways:
>Logically and practically.
> 
>Logically:
>You can disprove an axiom only if you add an additional
>axiom to your system:  A -> ~(~A), that is if A is in the
>system then definitely ~A cannot be.  Is this the axiom
>of all philosophers Jim? I seem to remember some vehemently arguing
>against this point.  Were you not one of them?  :-)

I was and I wasn't.  (Seriously, I don't remember any such discussion
here, or anywhere else for that matter.)  A -> ~~A is going to be true
in any logic which affirms the principle of non-contradiction.  I'm
not aware of any logics which don't.  (You can throw out the principle
of the excluded middle and get logics with more than two truth values,
but you'll still get A -> ~~A.)

>In any case, axioms are by definition non-examinable.

But background beliefs of human beings are examinable.

>Practically:
>There is no contradiction or inconsistency in the axiom
>of the Bible being accurate on all accounts because show me
>any contraditiction and I will interpret the language, the intent
>of the writer (whether he was being literal or not) and the
>superimposed meaning to show that there is no contradiction.
>For instance, the numerological interpretation cares nothing of
>context but shows hidden meaning in the number of the words as
>written in the original languages.  This is the problem of meaning.

This doesn't address my point.  I said you can disprove an axiom
if it is contradictory or inconsistent with others, and this
rejoinder is to deny inconsistency or contradiction.  It's certainly
true that this rejoinder is always available (though it is frequently
unsound).

>All I am saying is that the fundamental assumption of the Bible
>being "true" (don't ask me what that means) is what is on the
>top of the list.  All else must be made to point to that.  
>This is usually never stated explicitely but is always there.
>Until you get a fundamentalist to acknowledge that this assumption
>can be part of the debate, you are wasting your time.  I have
>seen the discussions boil down to this point so often that it
>gets to be old hat after a while.

Agreed.

Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben)
Subject: Re: Science and God
Keywords: Science, God
Organization: CenterLine Software, Inc.
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 15:26:23 GMT

lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun) writes:
>There is one way of looking at the physical universe which is
>that everything including stars, atoms, electrons and binding
>forces is continuously sustained by Jesus in real time.

That's not science: that's paranoia.

It is just as unprovable as everything being a dream of some being.

It's interesting that many sects emphasize confirming belief for yourself
while drilling their members in invallid and erroneous sources of "proof"
or "evidence".  When one is trained to interpret everything as "work of god"
or some such, it is much more difficult to entertain ideas to the contrary.

Mike Huben

"Damn the Solar System.  Bad light; planets too distant; pestered with comets;
feeble contrivance; could make a better myself."  Francis [Lord] Jeffery
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: robd@cherry09 (Robert Derrick)
Subject: Re: double ARGH!! -- yet another correction
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Date: 19 Aug 92 11:14:51 CDT

Chris Colby (colby@bu-bio.bu.edu) wrote:
: I must have been absolutely devoid of brain activity when I wrote
: the helper post(*). In each instance where I say "cost/benefit ratio"
: it should read "benefit/cost ratio". I'm going to some pawn shops today
: to see if I can find a good used brain 8-)

Chris, I think that this constant public self-flagellation is terrible
and a great disservice to the Noble Endeavor of Science as it shows
that your discourse is fraught with an undeniable weakness - integrity.

How can we ever possibly trust anything you say from here on?
How can we know that it is not as completely riddled with errors as
this recent attempt at enlightenment?  You, Chris Colby, are
fallible, but worse, you publically parade your deficiency for all
the world to see.

How much better are the Creationists!  When faced with such a gross
mistake, a good Creationist would simply say that the reader was
misunderstanding the text and that although it might seem to some
that it says "thus", it in fact means "so", and is correct, even
though some people might twist the words to mean something
completely different.

Try Inerrancy, Chris, and do the world of Science a favor.

I am so ashamed.

rob derrick

PS: thanks for a wonderful article, that, although filled with
misinformation, still conveyed more knowledge than both the
"What Is Creation Science" and "Life...{according to the JW's}"
books combined.  And you are forgiven.
From: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: White skin-how did it develope?
Date: 21 Aug 92 16:14:18 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun)

In article <1992Aug21.121440.24522@city.cs>, lionel@cs (Lionel Tun) writes:
>According to evolutionist thinking, whites and blacks can be
>considered two separate species. So the situation in apartheid
>countries has an evolutionary basis. How are whites and blacks
>considered different species?  [...]

The secret is out.  Lionel is a Nazi.  That explains many things.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.origins,soc.culture.african.american,alt.rap
From: pockling@fraser.sfu.ca (richard pocklington)
Subject: Re: White skin-how did it develope?
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 17:27:34 GMT

lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun) writes:

>In article <1992Aug20.223509.7577@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> talk.origins,soc.culture.african.american,alt.rap writes:
>>
>>     I have thought over the evolution of skin color, and have run into the
>>following questions:

>I will leave it to the evolutionists to come up with a `just-so'
>story to explain this scientifically. Meanwhile while we are on
>this subject I would like to raise a point.

* >According to evolutionist thinking, * whites and blacks can be
>considered two separate species. So the situation in apartheid
>countries has an evolutionary basis. How are whites and blacks
>considered different species? Well evolutionists like to show
>speciation has and is occuring. A popular method is to say that
>two sets of organisms that are identical but differ in mating
>habits or preferences `cannot' interbreed and are therefore
>two distinct species. This can be extended to human society if
>social factors cause different races to prefer not to interbreed.


I'm afraid you are terribly ignarant of what "evolutionist thinking"
is.  Do you even know what a species is ?  Please go read a chapter
or two in a basic textbook on evolutionary biology before you spout
of such utter crap!  I have a reference for you if you would like
it is "Evolutionary Biology" by DJ Futuyma published by Sinauer Ass.
in 1979.  It starts of gently and Dr. Futuyma does an OK job at
describing not only evolution, but the history of the idea.    
Evolution has been one of the most misinterpreted ideas that a scientist
ever came up with, despite its elegance and simplicity.  


	To all those who would criticise the "theory of evolution"
I ask you this.  How much time have you spent learning what science
has to say about evolution?  What do you know of the theory and its 
applications?  I've read the bible and had religeous instruction for 
many years, but I suspect that most creationist types are acting
on tiny snippets of information gleaned from popular books, this is
not an adequate background to qualify you to intelligently critique
evolutionary thoery.  

>Actually I think the main three racial groupings (black, white,
>yellow) are descended from Noah's three sons.


Very very unlikely, if you do agree that there is such a thing as a "race
" in the first place!  
>Lionel Tun   (lionel@cs.city.ac.uk)
sion Group, City University, London, EC1V 0HB. 071-477 8000 x 3889



Richard Pocklington    pockling@sfu.ca

 	THERE ARE NO RULES IN UTOPIA
From: sje@xylos.ma30.bull.com (Steven J. Edwards)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: A telling statistic
Date: 21 Aug 92 18:12:00 GMT
Reply-To: sje@xylos.ma30.bull.com
Distribution: talk
Organization: Bull HN, Worldwide Information Systems, Billerica, Mass., USA

A recent news article gave the number of academically credentialed
scientists in the United States as about one and a half million.  Of
these, less than one thousand (0.07 percent) were creationists.  (This
appears in the 1992/Spring issue of _Free Inquiry_ quoting from a
science news report in the _Boston Globe_.  I would expect a similar
number of astrology believers.)

Of course, it is unlikely that the above statistic will ever appear in
creationist propaganda.  More likely are the continued disingenuous,
purposely misleading comments like "many scientists have doubts about
darwinism" or "that book advocating evolution admits to being 'science
fiction'".

Concerning the JW book against evolution and for a literal Genesis
creation: I have both the bachelor's and master's degrees in
mathematics, although neither is really needed to determine that just
about every mathematical reference is the JW book is bogus.  Some are
just plain wrong, some are wrong because the author just didn't know
what he was talking about, and some are wrong because of apparently
deliberate deception.

 [The above opinions expressed are my own; not necessarily held by others.]
      == Steven J. Edwards           Bull HN Information Systems Inc. ==
      == (508) 294-3484              300 Concord Road         MS 820A ==
      == sje@xylos.ma30.bull.com     Billerica, MA 01821          USA ==
"That Government which Governs the Least, Governs Best." -- Thomas Jefferson
Xref: sparky talk.origins:9865 soc.culture.african.american:8962 alt.rap:4164
From: bogreen@council.chspr.ubc.ca (Bo Green)
Newsgroups: talk.origins,soc.culture.african.american,alt.rap
Subject: Re: White skin-how did it develope?
Date: 21 Aug 92 18:04:52 GMT
Reply-To: bogreen@unixg.ubc.ca
Organization: Centre for Health Services & Policy Res.

I have some problems with the hypothesis - I am thinking that specific
locations may be important. The Inuit of northern North America do not
have light skin. Neither did the aboriginals of Northern Eastern Europe
(former USSR). These people did very well in the north with dark skin,
although, I guess, it isn't "black" skin either.
You may want to look at what's different about more specific areas,
areas that have been "white" for a long long time (like Scandinavia).

Bo Green (bo!bo!bo!)                      Internet: bogreen@unixg.ubc.ca
Programmer/Analyst                        Bitnet: USERJIK@UBCMTSG
Centre For Health Services and Policy Research
University of British Columbia, Vancouver CANADA
From: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: dawkins/_the selfish
Date: 20 Aug 92 14:03:04 GMT
Distribution: talk
Organization: animal -- coelomate -- deuterostome

In article <1992Aug19.929.16430@dosgate> "herb sutter" <herb.sutter@canrem.com> writes:

>2. I use the term "evolution" broadly for convenience. 

>3. This may surprise many, but I cheerfully agree that "microevolution"
>happens all the time.  :-)

What about common descent? If not, what evidence do you have for
special creation?

>I just don't think it should be called
>"evolution."

Oh I see, since you use the term incorrectly, we should all change
our usage? Is that it or am I missing something?

>Of course there are blue finches and orange finches and
>quite possibly purple polka-dotted finches, all descended from common
>ancestor(s), but:  a) I would call this "variety within a `kind'" instead
>of "evolution" (which implies eventual change of `kind');

Do you have any evidence for your views.

>b) the finches
>are still finches, they haven't changed into dogs or cats.

No, but they used to be dinosaurs (and yes, I have evidence _for_ this).

>While there is obviously great variety within dogs (and within cats, and
>horses, etc.), no matter how much time you allow one does not change into
>another.

Do you have any evidence to support this?

>While animals within the dog
>`kind' (for example) may interbreed and form new varieties of dogs, you
>can breed dogs for aeons and (breeding evidence seems to prove) you will
>always end up with a dog.

Or at least you can keep calling it "dog" even though mastiffs and
schnausers are both examples of "dog". Doesn't this strike you as
a really dopey semantic argument?

>(In fact, in experiments with deliberately
>mutated fruit flies, after several generations even the mutants eventually
>bred true unmutated fruit flies again -- quite an interesting result.)

Ever actually read these papers? (Or ever heard that Dobzhansky had
a speciation event occur in his lab while working with fruit flies?)

>Herb

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: simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Christian message (in defense of Jim Loucks)
Date: 18 Aug 92 12:48:00 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Warwick University, England

In article <62vd03lH59mh00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> jloucks@uts.amdahl.com (Jim Loucks) writes:
>jgacker@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker) writes:
>
> [...]

>> Attempting to force a religious viewpoint (creationism) to be taught
>> as scientific fact is incorrect, and believing that this is a proper
>> practice of the Christian faith is, I believe, incorrect as well.

> If I have communicated in some way that I am forcing creationism to
> be taught as scientific fact then I must apologize for not communicating
> properly.

Note the first word, "Attempting", in Mr. Acker's post. Your response
doesn't address whether or not you are *attempting* to force etc. etc.

Which brings us right back to a question I asked you some time ago
(on three separate occasions in June), namely whether or not you
believe that the teaching of a `scientific' creation theory in school
science classes should be legally mandatory.

The only answer you would give back then was

> I haven't changed my mind at all.

but you declined to say from what position you hadn't changed it.

The other question you declined to answer was "If so, which one?", which
seemed topical in the light of your acknowledged inability to produce
an exposition of any such `scientific' creation theory.

How about it this time, Jim?

>Jim Loucks           jloucks@uts.amdahl.com 
>{apple, pyramid, sun, uunet}!amdahl!jloucks

Cheers

Simon
-- 
Simon Clippingdale                simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk
Department of Computer Science    Tel (+44) 203 523296
University of Warwick             FAX (+44) 203 525714
Coventry CV4 7AL, U.K.            or 0203 etc. if you're in the sunny UK
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: jgacker@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker)
Subject: Fred Hoyle followup (ignore if redundant)
Content-Type: text
Organization: Computer Science, Indiana University
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 92 9:27:56 EDT
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4dev PL73]
Content-Length: 1221      



	Inquiry regarding Fred Hoyle:

	Fred Hoyle is a noted, nay, famous British astronomer and not
a hack, nosirree.  I believe his expertise is radio astronomy, yet he
became most noted for the "other" theory of the Universe, the "steady-
state" theory, which basically stated:

	The Universe had no beginning and no End, and matter was 
created spontaneously to keep the process going.  Because of the vast
volume of Space, just a few hydrogen atoms coming into existence 
spontaneously kept the process rolling.

	I didn't know he was supporting the "Life from outer space"
idea, but since the investigation into carbonaceous chondrites, which
for the uninitiated are meteorites with a large amount of carbon and NOT
nickel-iron, the import of primordial cells from outer space to a 
ripe-for-life world like Earth has been suggested as a possible beginning
for life on the Earth.  Which engenders the question of where those cells
came from, of course.

	Hoyle wrote an interesting novel called "The Black Cloud" which
we studied in college science-fiction class.

	Other interesting sidelights:  2010 - Odyssey Two (Arthur C. Clarke)
The Andromeda Strain (Michael Crichton)

	Jim Acker
	jgacker@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov


Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: amorgan@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Crunchy Frog)
Subject: Re: Christian message (in defense of Jim Loucks)
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 20:37:10 GMT

In article <639l03ot62RF00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> 
  jloucks@uts.amdahl.com (Jim Loucks) writes:

>Science should be taught in science class, but exactly, what is
>a comprehensive definition of science and what you can teach in
>school? 

There may not be a rock solid 100% hard and fast method to
distinguish science from non-science, but there are a lot of guidelines
(which various members of this group have vouchsafed many times).
Fer example: Making testable predictions doesn't hurt.
 
>From reading t.o, one would get the impression that 
>creationists never "do" science. I must and do disagree with this
>statement most vehemently. The "Creation ex nihilo Technical Journal"
>published in Australia and available through the ICR contains 
>articles of creation science, and the research performed. Now, 
>anyone can claim they aren't "doing" science, but making such a 
>claim in no way takes away from the fact that they are "doing"
>science.

You say they are doing science.  I say they ain't.  Provide
a list of predictions and experiments that they have made to test
their theory (they *do* have a theory, don't they?  Otherwise
they can hardly be doing science) and I will admit that you are
correct.

>Jim Loucks           jloucks@uts.amdahl.com 

C Frog
From: hamilton@hydra.cs.gmr.com (William E. Hamilton CS50 CS/50)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Science and God
Keywords: Science, God
Date: 13 Aug 92 19:53:01 GMT
Reply-To: hamilton@gmr.com (William E. Hamilton CS50 CS/50)
Organization: GM Research Labs, Warren, MI


In article <1992Aug13.172710.3754@city.cs> lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun) writes:
>julian@fraser.sfu.ca (Julian Shillcock) writes:
>>So I guess I am saying that if I do not invoke God to move stars
>>and bind electrons together in atoms then why should I use Him
>>to describe the evolution of the physical universe from the Big Bang
>>and to create life? But if I do believe that God is in control
>>(somehow) then it is matter of understanding His interaction with
>>the world not giving supernatural causes for physical effects
>>(Miracles apart, of course...)
>
>There is one way of looking at the physical universe which is
>that everything including stars, atoms, electrons and binding
>forces is continuously sustained by Jesus in real time.
>I can't find the biblical reference so maybe someone can help
>out here. 

One passage you probably have in mind here is Hebrews 1:3.
There are others.

>Considering that God is a spiritual being, and that
>he created the universe just to accomodate us, I don't see
                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I know this is "conventional wisdom" for many Christians, but is there any
scriptural support for it? I'd appreciate refs.

>why He should not be responsible for making it all hang
>together as it goes along. 

I have no problem with this, so long as you recognize that God 
upholds the universe in a consistent way, so that the pursuit
of science makes sense. (Not to say there are no such things
as miracles - just that miracles are rare enough that
the phenomena of the universe can be considered consistent.)

Just one possible way of looking
>at it btw.
>

Bill Hamilton
GM Research and Environment Staff
>
>--
>Lionel Tun   (lionel@cs.city.ac.uk)
>Vision Group, City University, London, EC1V 0HB. 071-477 8000 x 3889
From: news@fedfil.UUCP (news)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Holden Numbering
Date: 23 Aug 92 14:56:00 GMT
Organization: HTE

In article <1992Aug21.115828.18818@linus.mitre.org>, m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
> In article <2867@fedfil.UUCP> news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
> }Ignorance is bliss...
 
> You must be living in a continuous state of estacy.

True, only my 'estacy' doesn't come from ignorance.  It comes from having such
incompetant opposition.


-- 
Ted Holden
HTE

Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: pockling@fraser.sfu.ca (richard pocklington)
Subject: Re: "Whites First?" Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 22:42:23 GMT

I'm afraid you have all done a poor job at concealing your ignorance.
I stumbled upon your post hoping to find some interesting info, NOT.
Someone has previously mentioned that skin colour is slightly more 
complicated than the Black/White dichotomy you seem to believe in.
Skin colour, like many other traits is produced by a combination of
a number of genes (14 or not who cares) and environmental influence.
This is painfully obvious if you've ever been out in the sun.  Of course
only the genetic part is heritable.  The distribution of skin colour
at time T+x is dependant upon the distribution of skin colour at time
T and the selection coefficient acting on the skin colour genes for time
x.  If, fore example, pale faced albino white folks died when left out
in the sun too long, while those that had more skin pigmentation 
survived, you could find the distribution of skin colour changing over
the years.  
	I also wish to comment on someones remark that the children of 
mixed marriages end up being lighter.  This is not well proven to my
knowledge, but what I do know is that due to the severley demented
nastily screwed up view points of most evil racist North American 
citizens, a child of two "White" parents is always "White".  The
children of two "Black" parents are "Black".  But the wierd part is
that the children of a "Black" and a "White " parent is always a 
"Black".  This has nothing to do with skin colour, but has a lot to
due with strange notions racists are brought up with.  Please
think about this.


			THERE ARE NO RULES IN UTOPIA

			Richard pocklington  pockling@sfu.ca

Newsgroups: talk.origins